ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 11:17 PM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:37 PM
The reason I'm agnostic is because there is no evidence of God(s), but I'm open to the possibility. As of yet, no one has made a good case. It always comes down to the leap of faith. And the only reason to take the leap of faith is because that person needs to believe in a god for some reason.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:41 AM
Because 105% of Mac-users have bought Photoshop Elements bundled with a digital camera.
I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?
I have a digital camera, yet it didn't come with Photoshop Elements. Strange huh?
Ugg
Apr 15, 10:50 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
It's absolutely appalling that you're hijacking this thread to promote your own agenda. The project was started because a boy named Trevor committed suicide because he was bullied for being gay.
Are there fat kids who commit suicide for being bullied? Probably, but since this is a voluntary, grass roots effort on the part of gay adults who were bullied when they were young....
Maybe the rest of society needs to do pick up the banner for their own cause instead of lashing out at what is, once again, a voluntary effort.
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
What does your rant have to do with the Trevor Project? Kids have the right to grow up in a healthy supporting environment. Encouraging religious hate in schools sort of defeats the point of education, doesn't it?
Gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Why should a special effort not be made to help them? Why shouldn't we encourage kids to feel good about who they are?
You don't choose to be gay, you do choose to hate.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
So as I mentioned above, gay kids have the highest rate of self-harm, substance abuse, homelessness, and yes, suicide. Is it wrong to tell the kids to hang in there? That things will truly get better? I don't think so and once again I'm appalled that anyone could view the Trevor Project as a BAD thing. This is a matter of adults who were bullied and now work for one of the most creative and successful companies in the world.
They overcame their problems, in part by sticking it out, by not committing suicide, by sharing their secret.
This isn't about everyone wins at T-ball, this is about surviving.
I'm not against the message of encouraging people to reach out for help in a time of need, or helping those under the stress of bullying to realize that it gets better. Though, I am curious why a commercial company is attaching itself to a particular community? If Apple participated in a video that supported a community of people believing that marriage should be between only a man and a woman, the LGBT community would be outraged. Why alienate customers that may have strong opinions on the subject, no matter which side they're on?
So, it's ok for corporations to make political contributions, but it's wrong for employees to band together and make social statements? Apple has always been a company that "Thinks Different" and they've also been at the forefront of offering benefits to same sex partners. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that they support gay causes.
Why you would think that this video, done voluntarily by a handful of employees is a bad thing is beyond me.
I'm gay, in my late 40s and was bullied some in school. I can only imagine what a video like this could have done for me. I'm not as politically strident as LeeKohler, but the Trevor Project has struck a deep chord in me and I totally fail to understand how anyone can be against this project. It's real people, telling their own stories, why is that wrong?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 12:33 AM
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2MVcAZnowo), uploaded to YouTube yesterday, has some nuclear scientists from the University of Michigan discussing the situation in Japan as they see it. They do not seem to think that a Chernobyl-level of radiation emission incident is likely, but a large but lesser radiation leak of is still possible.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
The situation is still far from stable, and as for the future reconstruction of the plant - I don't think that's an issue anyone cares about at the moment, efforts are rightly focused on stabilizing the reactor cores. But based on the structural damage to the plant and the subsequent damage wrought by the malfunctioning reactors, I think there is a good chance that several of the reactor buildings are total losses, and the remaining ones might be beyond economic repair.
At the moment though, all bets are off. It's not looking good.
Apple OC
Apr 26, 10:16 PM
I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
An Islamic Internet?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/26/irans-plan-halal-internet-repressive-iranian-group-says/?test=latestnews
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 06:56 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 07:49 PM
This is my first post but I think I can comment on this thread because my wife and I use both a Mac and a PC in our business.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 10:39 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.
but worth it :D. if they get conroe i fully expect that most every G5 will be outclassed by IMACS at many applications. Depends on how much RAM they give it though. I hope they give imac at least 4GB capacity, and 256VRAM.
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/
TuckBodi
Sep 12, 01:11 AM
I have not read the whole thread here but I must say coming from an iPhone 3g to the iPhone 4 is a night and day difference. I love my iPhone 4. I think since I have had it I have had about 5 total dropped calls. I have had it since late July. I had that many dropped calls in a day with my 3g. I just had to add this in cause I see people complain about the same thing all the time. Dropped call this and dropped call that. Frankly I don't see it. Maybe I just have the super iPhone. LOL! Just my .02 worth!
-Dave
Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.
-Dave
Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
driftway
Aug 14, 10:17 PM
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
hahahahahahaha That was a good one.
Salacion
Apr 20, 07:14 PM
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
After hearing some parts of your mind, you definitely correlate well with your Android device.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
After hearing some parts of your mind, you definitely correlate well with your Android device.
prady16
Aug 29, 10:55 AM
I sure do appreciate Dell for this!
If only they had making better quality products as their first priority!
If only they had making better quality products as their first priority!
GGJstudios
May 2, 01:00 PM
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
While you may not need a reminder for an app that you downloaded a second ago, what about an app that might get downloaded without the user's knowledge, perhaps with the name of a well-known app they currently use? The presence of this reminder would alert them to the fact that they're about to launch something other than what they expected. Besides, how often are you downloading and first-launching apps? It's not enough of an annoyance to worry about and the benefit outweighs the inconvenience for most people.
neko girl
Apr 26, 10:14 PM
Thread topic reminds me of:
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
http://gurugilbert.com/wp-content/jerry_seinfeld.jpg
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.
Phil A.
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
The one thing that struck me on the report is the amount of marks given to companies who have committed to a timescale. For example, Apple have committed to removing all BFRs but given no timescale and are marked as "bad". Dell have committed to removing all BFRs by 2009 and are marked "Good". Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles), and I think it's a bit misleading to give any company full marks simply because they have given a date that may be missed. I would have preferred to see those marked as Partially Good because clearly a commitment isn't as good as actually delivering on promises.
leekohler
Mar 27, 11:22 PM
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
How interesting. You expect others to consider your feelings, while denying them the same courtesy. Wow.
People like you Bill, are the reason I attempted suicide at 19 (I'm 43 now). I didn't attempt it because I was gay. I attempted because I was afraid that if anyone knew, I would lose everything- family, friends etc. Like it or not, the things you say convey that kind of thing to young people. It works both ways. You get what you give. You might want to think about what you're giving right now. Like it or not, you're causing harm. No one would sit here and tell you not to be handicapped.
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
How interesting. You expect others to consider your feelings, while denying them the same courtesy. Wow.
People like you Bill, are the reason I attempted suicide at 19 (I'm 43 now). I didn't attempt it because I was gay. I attempted because I was afraid that if anyone knew, I would lose everything- family, friends etc. Like it or not, the things you say convey that kind of thing to young people. It works both ways. You get what you give. You might want to think about what you're giving right now. Like it or not, you're causing harm. No one would sit here and tell you not to be handicapped.
Capt Underpants
Jul 12, 12:08 AM
Hate to say I told you so (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2559135#post2559135) ;)
Oded S.
I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.
We'll soon see...
Oded S.
I'm sticking to my belief that the iMacs will get Merom.
We'll soon see...