ddtlm
Oct 7, 11:14 AM
I'd be more impressed with these "tests" if the pro-Mac cowards had used a top-of-the-line Athlon system (1.8ghz is available for duals, 2.13ghz is pretty much available for singles) or a top-of-the-line P4 (2.0ghz? haha!). The 2.0ghz P4 runs on the old 400mhz FSB whereas there is a 533mhz FSB P4 clocking at 2.8ghz available. They also make no mention of memory type used on any platform. For the P4, PC1066 RDRAM is tops, for the Athlon the new nForce2 with 2 channels of 333mhz DDR is tops (although I will admit that chipset still has a one-month ETA). OK, so maybe use the VIA KT400 for the Athlon, it's pretty good.
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...
Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
notabadname
Apr 20, 05:40 PM
Largest App store . . .
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
slffl
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Isn't it was everyone was expecting? Looks like an Airport Express in a different form factor to accomodate all of the different ports. Basically gives you the ability to stream your videos from your computer.
milo
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
Plus I'm going to have to wait 2+ hours for it to download, plus nothing extra.
You don't have to wait, if you have a fast connection you can watch while it's downloading.
So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Who says it will only do DVD quality? It has HD outputs, and some of the reports said he called up the incredibles (was it the movie or the trailer?) in HD.
Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Which is exactly what I want. If you want TV tuner, just buy one, they're already available. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up buying Elgato. If Apple announced a TV tuner, wouldn't people be complaining that it would put poor Elgato out of business?
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
So was your laptop free...or did you find one for under five bucks?
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
As above...didn't you have to buy your computer? And isn't it a pain to have to have your computer sitting next to the TV while you're watching (all the time if it's not a laptop, drag it in if it is)? I did that for a while with my mini and got tired of it.
no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Did they say that the iTV only did 640x480, or is that just something you assumed?
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
You don't have to wait, if you have a fast connection you can watch while it's downloading.
So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Who says it will only do DVD quality? It has HD outputs, and some of the reports said he called up the incredibles (was it the movie or the trailer?) in HD.
Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
Which is exactly what I want. If you want TV tuner, just buy one, they're already available. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple ends up buying Elgato. If Apple announced a TV tuner, wouldn't people be complaining that it would put poor Elgato out of business?
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.
So was your laptop free...or did you find one for under five bucks?
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
As above...didn't you have to buy your computer? And isn't it a pain to have to have your computer sitting next to the TV while you're watching (all the time if it's not a laptop, drag it in if it is)? I did that for a while with my mini and got tired of it.
no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
Did they say that the iTV only did 640x480, or is that just something you assumed?
wireless is useless for watching movies. I use my mac now to get videos from NAS servers and wireless doesn't cut it. I need to be going 100 or else it gets choppy. Unless they release a new wireless access point.
You mean CURRENT wireless isn't fast enough. There's a new, faster standard on the way, which is probably part of the reason this isn't shipping yet.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell hi
m they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell hi
m they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 09:48 PM
I don't believe in God. To me, I haven't seen anything to convince me of his existence and it just seems way too convenient of a way to explain away difficult questions. I also don't think that religion would add anything to my life - it's just not an issue for me, I don't even think about it until asked.
I am interested in this thread, just because I am not used to people questioning my viewpoint, or even really caring about how big the atheist population is. In the UK, it just doesn't seem that the issue is that important.
Is this a bigger issue in the US, and do atheists abroad feel pressure to at least consider the idea of a God?
I am interested in this thread, just because I am not used to people questioning my viewpoint, or even really caring about how big the atheist population is. In the UK, it just doesn't seem that the issue is that important.
Is this a bigger issue in the US, and do atheists abroad feel pressure to at least consider the idea of a God?
rasmasyean
Apr 24, 03:56 AM
In my short time serving in the Canadian military, I had not seen this. There was a rather flexible chaplain who served the religious needs of several faiths but most soldiers were left to stew in their own thoughts.
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Well…we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don’t have to go there. :p
All I’m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what “cannon fodder” is. Sometimes you can’t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal…or even victory. It’s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of “god and heaven”.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly “crushing an inferior force” type of wars we’ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don’t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of “zealots” to do the job. But if there was a “real war”, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other… Don’t laugh. If the “middle east” turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to “the west” too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much “better” than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a “sophisticated Westerner” think about China…or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn’t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
Evangelion
Jul 12, 04:13 AM
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.
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
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.
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
DroidRules
Apr 21, 12:10 AM
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.
I almost shot milk out my nose! Funny cause it's true. :D
http://youtu.be/8DYje57V_BY
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.
I almost shot milk out my nose! Funny cause it's true. :D
http://youtu.be/8DYje57V_BY
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
Povilas
Oct 8, 08:10 AM
I don't understand why some of you are having such a hard time believing this.
The iPhone is great, it's not going any where. It is however one device from one company, and it's never going to be low (or even mid) end [of the market].
Android has the world at it's feet, really. It has an apps store (with 15,000 apps so far), you're not locked in to using this apps store though, others can come along, or you can just copy an app to your phone and install it (no jailbreaking crap needed).
Windows Mobile is a dead horse, iPhone OS is closed, but people want smart phones. Android to the rescue.
Any manufacturer can take Android, they can design any handset with any features they like to sell in different markets and at different budgets. They don't have to invest a fortune in developing an OS themselves, or the infrastructure to support it. It's all done for them. If they want to they can have a few devs customising Android to some extent, but it's not a huge commitment. They can just as easily leave it alone and not have to do anything with it.
Really seems like many a manufacturers wet dream.
iPhone OS is closed and you can buy apps only on the App Store. For other ways to work you need to jailbreak. Android has no such restriction, but you have no guarantee that app you are buying is not some trojan horse or it has 1000 other bad things.
The iPhone is great, it's not going any where. It is however one device from one company, and it's never going to be low (or even mid) end [of the market].
Android has the world at it's feet, really. It has an apps store (with 15,000 apps so far), you're not locked in to using this apps store though, others can come along, or you can just copy an app to your phone and install it (no jailbreaking crap needed).
Windows Mobile is a dead horse, iPhone OS is closed, but people want smart phones. Android to the rescue.
Any manufacturer can take Android, they can design any handset with any features they like to sell in different markets and at different budgets. They don't have to invest a fortune in developing an OS themselves, or the infrastructure to support it. It's all done for them. If they want to they can have a few devs customising Android to some extent, but it's not a huge commitment. They can just as easily leave it alone and not have to do anything with it.
Really seems like many a manufacturers wet dream.
iPhone OS is closed and you can buy apps only on the App Store. For other ways to work you need to jailbreak. Android has no such restriction, but you have no guarantee that app you are buying is not some trojan horse or it has 1000 other bad things.
Bonte
Sep 20, 02:00 AM
iTV is basically a limited Mini with better remote control software, if i can use an Elgato eyeTV on it to record i'm buying for sure. Ideally would be an eyeTV with a USB 2 connection to add a big HD.
jamesbjenkins
May 12, 11:14 AM
The ONLY reason I'm ATT is the iPhone. I get dropped calls all the time, billing issues out the yin-yang, terrible customer service who I can't even understand 75% of the time.......the list goes on.
I know it's not only ATT, but the notion that I have to pay an additional $20/month for SMS when I already pay those *$%&#^%s $30/month for "unlimited" data. WTF about it is unlimited if I can't send text messages (read: data) as part of the package. It's legalized robbery. I wish the other major carriers would follow Sprint's lead of the $69/month truly unlimited plan.
I wish I could do something worse than just leave ATT...like crap in a UPS box and ship it to their home office.
I swear I will leave ATT the very instant the iPhone becomes available on Verizon or Sprint. I'd really prefer Sprint, but Verizon will do.
ATT has been riding the iPhone train for almost 3 years, knowing that people will put up with their crappy service and other misc BS because they want the iPhone bad enough. It just makes me sick. I hope they go bankrupt when they lose the exclusivity on the iPhone. Booooo.
I know it's not only ATT, but the notion that I have to pay an additional $20/month for SMS when I already pay those *$%&#^%s $30/month for "unlimited" data. WTF about it is unlimited if I can't send text messages (read: data) as part of the package. It's legalized robbery. I wish the other major carriers would follow Sprint's lead of the $69/month truly unlimited plan.
I wish I could do something worse than just leave ATT...like crap in a UPS box and ship it to their home office.
I swear I will leave ATT the very instant the iPhone becomes available on Verizon or Sprint. I'd really prefer Sprint, but Verizon will do.
ATT has been riding the iPhone train for almost 3 years, knowing that people will put up with their crappy service and other misc BS because they want the iPhone bad enough. It just makes me sick. I hope they go bankrupt when they lose the exclusivity on the iPhone. Booooo.
Nomadski
Apr 28, 09:16 PM
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Im not even sure this guy can be serious. Windows 7 sells so well because people who upgraded an 8 year old OS (XP) to a buggy overbloated OS (Vista) had to quickly replace it with something that actually works (7). W7 is great IMO, but Mac users don't need to use Windows in any form, they have OSX. And OSX rocks.
Just because they CAN install Windows doesn't mean they do.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Im not even sure this guy can be serious. Windows 7 sells so well because people who upgraded an 8 year old OS (XP) to a buggy overbloated OS (Vista) had to quickly replace it with something that actually works (7). W7 is great IMO, but Mac users don't need to use Windows in any form, they have OSX. And OSX rocks.
Just because they CAN install Windows doesn't mean they do.
pinchez
Apr 13, 07:19 AM
Wow all
this fuss over a piece of software, It's not a hardware or even a OS release :confused:
this fuss over a piece of software, It's not a hardware or even a OS release :confused:
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:28 AM
Wondering why Android users are on a Mac forum?
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
Perhaps they also own Macs, after all a lot of iPhone owners have Windows PCs.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:50 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
By the way, I agree with you. Once you buy something, you should be able to use said device to its maximum potential. NOT have to pay to unlock its built-in features.
And by the way AT&T;, all I want from you is a large pipe full of 1s and 0s. What I choose do do with them, or how I use and distribute them should be of no concern... Just one flat rate for a big, fast, data pipe.
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
By the way, I agree with you. Once you buy something, you should be able to use said device to its maximum potential. NOT have to pay to unlock its built-in features.
And by the way AT&T;, all I want from you is a large pipe full of 1s and 0s. What I choose do do with them, or how I use and distribute them should be of no concern... Just one flat rate for a big, fast, data pipe.
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients
need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients
need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
Consultant
Apr 11, 11:17 AM
I miss wasting most of my time waiting for windows to start up / shut down / update / virus scan / defrag / pop up warnings / etc. :rolleyes:
leekohler
Mar 11, 09:39 AM
My cousin is in Japan visiting his wife's family. He says they're OK right now, but that could change.
puma1552
Mar 14, 08:40 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
adamfilip
Jul 12, 08:44 AM
i think all the new mac pro will be quad core xeons (2 chips) just range in frequency.
Peace
Sep 12, 04:57 PM
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
