citizenzen
Mar 28, 11:49 AM
He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
Is that your dogma, or are you just happy to see me?
CaoCao
Mar 26, 12:58 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
We have no idea what causes homosexuality although we have ruled out choice.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
If we are doing it through the fly of our pants what makes it unsanitary?
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too—divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Matthew 5:10-12
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Pax
We have no idea what causes homosexuality although we have ruled out choice.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
If we are doing it through the fly of our pants what makes it unsanitary?
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
heterosexual marriage is beneficial to society by the stability it provides. Homosexual marriage is only based on love and thus is unstable because things built on only love lack perseverance.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too—divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Matthew 5:10-12
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Pax
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:45 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
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.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
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.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:24 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Sorry dude, cant agree. Were ALL messed up folks in this world, and need constant grace. I definitely want to get as much as I can...cause I need it:) Stay well.
SimD
Apr 12, 11:00 PM
I'm out of this thread.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
Avid/Final Cut bashing is useless. Both have their place in the industry. Heck, both are sometimes used together...
Same goes for Adobe. It has its uses.
No need to boast about one being better than the other. Coppola's editor uses Final Cut, the Coen Bros use Final Cut, Fincher's editor uses Final Cut. And a **** load of editors use Avid. Is one film better because of the editing software? Not in my eyes.
Anyway, the update looks promising. I'm excited.
Happy editing. Ciao.
Thomas2006
Oct 14, 10:52 AM
BTW Looks like Apple is way overcharging for the 3GHz Woodcrest upgrade. Only cost them $322 more - probably less off the published price list - yet they are asking for $800. That doesn't seem fair to me. Does it to you? I would think that $500 would be a more reasonable upgrade price for something that cost them about $300.
Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited.
Maybe it is so when the quad-core systems come out Apple can keep the same price for the top-end while lowering the price on dual-core systems and still make a profit. The people that wait for the quad-cores will be happy they did and the people that don't care can get a Mac Pro for less because they waited.
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 06:10 PM
I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)No doubt there are some such people, but I have the feeling that most consumers aren't making a price-sensitive decision about this.
If they buy online music legally, it may be because they believe in following rules in general, or fear breaking the law, or want to support the business model, or understand and accept the DRM tradeoffs, or think 99 cents is a bargain, or have enough money for the music they want, or think they are helping the artists, or don't even know how to steal music, etc.
If they steal online music, it may be because they feel any price is too much, or because artists are not getting enough of their money, or big business is bad, or DRM is a violation of their rights, or that it's ok because they couldn't afford to buy the music, or that it actually helps increase sales since they might buy the audio CD from a store if they like it, etc.
In other words, I think most people follow their principles, one way or another. And we'll continue to hear all of these points of view.
If they buy online music legally, it may be because they believe in following rules in general, or fear breaking the law, or want to support the business model, or understand and accept the DRM tradeoffs, or think 99 cents is a bargain, or have enough money for the music they want, or think they are helping the artists, or don't even know how to steal music, etc.
If they steal online music, it may be because they feel any price is too much, or because artists are not getting enough of their money, or big business is bad, or DRM is a violation of their rights, or that it's ok because they couldn't afford to buy the music, or that it actually helps increase sales since they might buy the audio CD from a store if they like it, etc.
In other words, I think most people follow their principles, one way or another. And we'll continue to hear all of these points of view.
mtkoren
Apr 9, 07:36 AM
Poaching suggests illegal, secret, stealing or other misadventure that is underhanded and sneaky.
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
Michael
From what I've read so far, and I'd be glad for someone to show me what I've missed, Apple had the job positions already advertised and for all we know these individuals, realizing their companies were sliding, applied to - and were received by - apple which replied with open arms. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Would that be poaching? Is this forum, like some others, doing headline greed?
Michael
Eidorian
Oct 26, 11:18 PM
Multimedia, I was wondering if you could address the FSB issue being discussed by a few people here, namely how more and more cores using the same FSB per chip can push only so much data through that 1333 MHZ pipe, thereby making the FSB act as a bottleneck. Any thoughts?It honestly depends on if those processors are going to fully saturate the FSB. If the FSB has a high enough data transfer rate then it shouldn't matter much that the cross talk between processors is over the FSB and not onboard via shared cache.
MrMacMan
Oct 7, 03:01 PM
Just one little statement.
They Overclocked to make the Althon Faster, so why not the mac. They could make their mac 'Closer' to the 2 GHZ mark, just by a little. And anyways not every program is going to take the 2ed processor and use it fully.
1 (1 ghz processor) *2 does not equal to 2 GHZ.
They Overclocked to make the Althon Faster, so why not the mac. They could make their mac 'Closer' to the 2 GHZ mark, just by a little. And anyways not every program is going to take the 2ed processor and use it fully.
1 (1 ghz processor) *2 does not equal to 2 GHZ.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
NikolasStow
May 2, 12:10 PM
I got this and immediately figured out it was a virus or some ****
Blue Velvet
Sep 26, 01:41 AM
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
Thanks. That's not particularly encouraging... I'm not in the habit of 'doing stuff in the background' when I'm working, unless it's disk-burning. :(
.jpg "mild heat rash pictures. dog")
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:13 AM
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Well, that's true.
Thanks for correcting me.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Well, that's true.
Thanks for correcting me.
gopher
Oct 7, 09:22 AM
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html
As I've always said, it is in the software!
As I've always said, it is in the software!
pkson
Apr 13, 12:05 AM
Anytime FCP is brought up there's a *body part* measuring *stuff*storm about who's "professional" and who's not.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
spipenge
Jun 27, 02:22 AM
I find it such a shame about the the low standards we as Americans have for our mobile providers. I see many people with the satisfaction of AT&T around the country, that they have no connection problems. Here is the problem. We are so accustomed to saying that signal strength is the be all and end all. The next question should be network speed. Case in point, I have family in Ottawa in Canada. He did a speedtest, during a weekday, and was getting 5.8 - 6.0 Mbps download speeds on Rogers and Fido networks. What do I get in NYC the fastest? On a good day 2.0 Mbps. The same morning he sent me his results from Ottawa I did a test and received 54 kbps. That's right...dial up speed. The fact is that we do not demand fast speeds as they have have in other places throughout the world, Europe, many parts of Asia and, yes, Canada. There is a reason for this: no competition. I can speak of Canada because of family there: there are multiple carriers there that will support the frequency the iPhone is on. Here, it is only AT&T. Many report using iPhone on T-Mobile with an unlocked phone, but, as I understand it, you can only used Edge on T-Mobile because of the different frequency. In other words, only 2G speeds.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
I also feel I have to comment on all the "why isn't Apple developing a phone for Verizon" comments. Simply put, that would be an enormous step back. Verizon's and Sprint's use of CDMA is a huge step back. CDMA just doesn't have the capability of a GSM network (and let's not forget you can't use a CDMA phone outside the United States because nobody else uses this really bad technology). What people don't know is that CDMA does not support simultaneous data and voice transmission and receive. Case in point: friend of mine has Verizon. He called me to ask me to send some directions to his phone. I asked him if he could check to see if the map I'd sent was the correct one. His response: I have to hang up to check my email. The issue, then, is to NOT seek a Verizon phone, but to demand that AT&T build a ubiquitous network that is fast enough.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 04:30 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field. If someone proves that Nicolosi is mistaken, maybe no one will need to attack him.
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
emotion
Sep 20, 08:44 AM
Well, actually I cannot understand why Apple has rejected original nano's design and has made a return to ipod mini style... IMO Ipod Nano was one of the best designs in Apple's recent history, so I am looking for a second hand one :)
Wrong thread?
Good luck getting a non-scratched second hand Nano. Every one I've seen is covered in them. Hence the redesign.
Back to iTV....
Wrong thread?
Good luck getting a non-scratched second hand Nano. Every one I've seen is covered in them. Hence the redesign.
Back to iTV....
jobesucks
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
robecq
Mar 18, 05:19 AM
They joys of an unregulated mobile industry..... being stuck with only 1 (until recently) choice of carrier, 2 year contracts, paying extra for tethering, PAYING for incoming calls (WTF:eek:).
I'm glad I'm stuck in over regulated EU. On the up side, you yanks get to play with all the new toys first :rolleyes:
I'm glad I'm stuck in over regulated EU. On the up side, you yanks get to play with all the new toys first :rolleyes:
bingo1234
Sep 21, 03:26 AM
airport express and airtunes allowed streaming content to a stereo. this just adds video function. that's it. if there is a hd it's for buffer and basic OS/ navigation.
still a very cool solution to sending content
still a very cool solution to sending content
briguy21
May 9, 07:40 PM
I loved the iPhone, but the AT&T service is crap! It drops calls with 5 Bars and 3G, so the Towers are not the issue. If Steve Jobs would wake F&*$ up and get with Verizon then AT&T would go out of Business. I am now with Verizon which is where I came from to get the iPhone and I have not dropped a call yet?
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar