zioxide
Mar 13, 09:03 AM
I'd be willing to bet that our crusades for oil have costs thousands of more lives than nuclear power accidents ever have.
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
iz cald teh interwebz, der r lotz ov werd peplz hre.
The internet has a lot of anarchists too, they typically think they are one of the few people who have broken free of the slave mindset of their country
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 05:57 AM
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:44 AM
Well, actually I cannot understand why Apple has rejected original nano's design and has made a return to ipod mini style... IMO Ipod Nano was one of the best designs in Apple's recent history, so I am looking for a second hand one :)
Wrong thread?
Good luck getting a non-scratched second hand Nano. Every one I've seen is covered in them. Hence the redesign.
Back to iTV....
Wrong thread?
Good luck getting a non-scratched second hand Nano. Every one I've seen is covered in them. Hence the redesign.
Back to iTV....
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
ss="username">Macky-Mac
Apr 27, 01:11 PM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), w......Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rt&Dzine;12470723]A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
It's entirely possible to believe in the Biblical God without any requirement to believe that the Bible is entirely divinely inspired.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), w......Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rt&Dzine;12470723]A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
It's entirely possible to believe in the Biblical God without any requirement to believe that the Bible is entirely divinely inspired.
