alent1234
Aug 26, 07:35 AM
my wife used to complain about dropped calls and poor signal at a military base in Long Island. i see a few dead zones once in a while in NYC. in laws have dumb phones on AT&T; and never complain. my wife and I moved them from Verizon to get on a family plan
pdjudd
Oct 8, 09:19 AM
...but who has the market share?
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
In smart phones? I believe Nokia and RIM are the big ones - and they are both vendors that have a high degree of control over the software and hardware. On the desktop market it clearly is MS, but it's not really accurate to say that they got that way due to availability on every hardware system under the sun. Microsoft's successes are due to bulding up from prior successes. No surprise their biggest success was practically given to them by a bone headed decision by IBM.
RIM is one proof that you can get tons of market share even when you control the whole widget to a high degree. The second component is having enough SKU's to accommodate different needs. Of course it can become very unwieldy very quickly.
Google's biggest problem is avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft fell into - trying to have a product that does everything in a market that tends to have difficulty in making choices. Either you get it right and maintain it with a focused plan, or you just release a new product every few months and see if it sticks somewhere.
We cannot say that Google will succeed with this strategy simply because we have a hard time predicting how it will happen - there are too many players vigorously competing. We don;t have an situation like the desktop market where an IBM mentality of thinking can just hand over the market to Google. Just because you attach "Google" and "Open" to something doesn't mean that it's going to succeed. And even if it does, succeed, it could be for a different reason altogether.
If I was a gambling person, I would say that ranking isn't going to be the factor to look at since all the contenders are going to be really close to each other - its not going to matter if "Google is in Second" because they will have to contend with a market where they can go to third in 6 months. In other workds - its who can do the best at leveraging one success into another - and in a market such as this - anybody can do that.
citizenzen
Mar 28, 09:56 AM
If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it.
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:20 AM
Glad I got the AT&T; 3G iPad 2. :D:D:D
I was really considering jailbreaking for theathering but unlike some have a problem with stealing.
And YES I do believe that if I buy 2 GIG of data I should be able to use it as I wish. But just becuase I want it that way does not give me the right to do it.Its stealing because At&t; says so? Really? How about At&t; stealing from us? They are charging twice for the same Data, that is stealing from the users.
No offense but I think people are brainwashed.
In Europe and even here in the US there are many carriers who do not charge for tethering because honestly I think charging is not ethical.
Just because a thief (At&t;) gets away with it does not make it right.
The law does not monitor contracts, it waits for us to complain and bring it to the judge. Maybe its time for a class action.
I was really considering jailbreaking for theathering but unlike some have a problem with stealing.
And YES I do believe that if I buy 2 GIG of data I should be able to use it as I wish. But just becuase I want it that way does not give me the right to do it.Its stealing because At&t; says so? Really? How about At&t; stealing from us? They are charging twice for the same Data, that is stealing from the users.
No offense but I think people are brainwashed.
In Europe and even here in the US there are many carriers who do not charge for tethering because honestly I think charging is not ethical.
Just because a thief (At&t;) gets away with it does not make it right.
The law does not monitor contracts, it waits for us to complain and bring it to the judge. Maybe its time for a class action.
![2001 Bentley Exp Speed 8. 2001 Bentley Azure. Sign up to the Bentley pictures and wallpapers Newsletter (free) for updates [CLICK HERE]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WtYG__HIRo4/SpKiGBz4G6I/AAAAAAAACdE/CV6HBIMICew/s400/Bentley-Azure_2001_1024x768_wallpaper_01.jpg "2001 Bentley Azure. Sign up to the Bentley pictures and wallpapers Newsletter (free) for updates [CLICK HERE]")
munkery
May 2, 04:14 PM
I'm curious how it auto-executes the installer because that can have potential damaging results for a user account, without privilege escalation. My data is all in my user account, I don't care about a few system files so much as I care about my data.
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
dgree03
Apr 28, 01:42 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:41 AM
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I've just read the linked article... cannot stop laughing at
"Closing one of my eyes would also cancel the [3D] effect"
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
alex_ant
Oct 7, 04:35 PM
I wish I could leave. Macrumors is to the GPA what the bug zapper is to the fly.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
MagnusVonMagnum
May 3, 05:19 PM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
Just look at the monster negative vote rating against anyone who ever criticizes Apple or anything remotely related (i.e. typical fanboy mass attack; they can't let blasphemy just go bye :D ). Frankly, I'm starting to think the lower the number on your post in most threads on such topics, the SMARTER you are. I know I usually give props to all the messages with the lowest scores since they are usually the only ones to tell the truth (kind of like listening to the Tea Party for advice; most are clueless fanatics and not much else).
I mean just look at the number for your post. You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac (even if it's not very dangerous) and pointed out the truth that most fanboys on here are getting completely bent out of shape and acting immature with their sarcasm. You were at -20 right before I hit reply in a thread where the average number is +/-2.
If someone can find me a set of Macintosh 'fanboy free' forums (as in fanboy accounts are deleted once recognized as such, themselves being a form of spam IMO), I'd love to know about it. It'd eliminate 95% of the total worthless fluff. Just think how much extra time one would have to do other things instead of wading through a cesspool of useless junk every day. ;)
Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
You must not get around much. Most Mac users I see everyday are technological neophytes. The Mac is designed to attract non-tech users so this shouldn't be a shock or anything. The difference I see is that most Mac users THINK they know 10-50x more than they actually do. Yes there are some very knowledgeable Mac users out there, but they are not in the majority by a long shot, IMO. The sheer volumes of drone-like fanboys on these forums ought to give you a clue just how bad it really is.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
Just look at the monster negative vote rating against anyone who ever criticizes Apple or anything remotely related (i.e. typical fanboy mass attack; they can't let blasphemy just go bye :D ). Frankly, I'm starting to think the lower the number on your post in most threads on such topics, the SMARTER you are. I know I usually give props to all the messages with the lowest scores since they are usually the only ones to tell the truth (kind of like listening to the Tea Party for advice; most are clueless fanatics and not much else).
I mean just look at the number for your post. You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac (even if it's not very dangerous) and pointed out the truth that most fanboys on here are getting completely bent out of shape and acting immature with their sarcasm. You were at -20 right before I hit reply in a thread where the average number is +/-2.
If someone can find me a set of Macintosh 'fanboy free' forums (as in fanboy accounts are deleted once recognized as such, themselves being a form of spam IMO), I'd love to know about it. It'd eliminate 95% of the total worthless fluff. Just think how much extra time one would have to do other things instead of wading through a cesspool of useless junk every day. ;)
Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
You must not get around much. Most Mac users I see everyday are technological neophytes. The Mac is designed to attract non-tech users so this shouldn't be a shock or anything. The difference I see is that most Mac users THINK they know 10-50x more than they actually do. Yes there are some very knowledgeable Mac users out there, but they are not in the majority by a long shot, IMO. The sheer volumes of drone-like fanboys on these forums ought to give you a clue just how bad it really is.
luminosity
Mar 15, 01:39 AM
Seems very serious to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp;
�It�s way past Three Mile Island already,� said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. �The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.�
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp;
�It�s way past Three Mile Island already,� said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. �The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.�
JasperJanssen
Apr 30, 02:52 AM
Surp
rise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Since when is Acer an enterprise player and Lenovo not?
rise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Since when is Acer an enterprise player and Lenovo not?
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 08:12 AM
The army is full of hippies? :eek: :D
Or are you spying on hippy communes?
:D
Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:
I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....
Or are you spying on hippy communes?
:D
Nope just blowback from the general public, got to love orders that come from the top :rolleyes:
I work with the general public a fair bit, handing out info and media packs to the press.....
nsjoker
Sep 20, 03:45 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
GGJstudios
May 2, 09:15 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
29point97
Apr 13, 12:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Bahaha yeah I realized that after. 2 days on the floor can make you a wee tired. Still holding my breath though.
Bahaha yeah I realized that after. 2 days on the floor can make you a wee tired. Still holding my breath though.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 03:14 PM
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Mister Snitch
Apr 9, 11:46 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 12:58 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for wh
at? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
We have no idea what causes homosexuality although we have ruled out choice.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
If we are doing it through the fly of our pants what makes it unsanitary?
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too—divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Matthew 5:10-12
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Pax
at? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
We have no idea what causes homosexuality although we have ruled out choice.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
If we are doing it through the fly of our pants what makes it unsanitary?
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too—divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Matthew 5:10-12
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Pax
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:46 AM
You just quoted me as saying something I did not say. Please correct it.
I corrected it.
I corrected it.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 02:27 PM
All Christians are not Catholics.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
