Piggie
Apr 10, 04:46 AM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
We have a company that's been around for 60 or 70 years and has many systems in place to run smoothly that have been perfected over the decades as proven ways of doing things.
Many years later the original management retire etc, and very young, fresh faced managers straight from school come in, and want to "make their mark" they then set about rubbishing all the "old ways" of doing things, for no really reason other than THEY don't like them, and they are things of the past, hence they must be wrong for just this reason.
Old = Wrong, New = right.
They then implemented for force through their new systems, ignoring people who tell them "this won't work" and "you can't do it like that" as, in these young eyes, these people are just stick in the muds resistant to change.
Move forward a few years of this and everything is a mess, things are way more complicated than they every were, paperwork is much more and things that used to be simple are now causing people all sorts of issues.
But still the young managers refuse to admit they might be wrong and the ways things used to be done were better, and all the "workers" are struggling having the keep the new systems working.
A little like, someone saying, Oh a round steering wheel in a car? How old that design is, it has to be wrong, from now on all our cars won't have steering wheels, that's for old people, we are moving forward to a flat touch screen panel in the car, much more modern, and those people who don't like them, or think a car is harder to control are just old people who can't understand the possibilities that this will bring.
gnasher729
Apr 21, 05:25 PM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
As a professional software developer, I can assure you that among people of my profession, the majority use a Macintosh for their private use. In some related professions (product design) it's not the majority, it is everyone. And I'm not not talking about artsy-fartsy type, I am talking about designers who I seriously trust to design products that will pay for my salary for the next few years. In other related professions (QA) I have the impression that more of them use Macs, but that is more anecdotal.
As a professional software developer, I can assure you that among people of my profession, the majority use a Macintosh for their private use. In some related professions (product design) it's not the majority, it is everyone. And I'm not not talking about artsy-fartsy type, I am talking about designers who I seriously trust to design products that will pay for my salary for the next few years. In other related professions (QA) I have the impression that more of them use Macs, but that is more anecdotal.
r.j.s
May 2, 11:30 AM
At best, it's a trojan. Still no viruses on MacOS X...
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
I wouldn't even call it that, it just asks for a credit card number, it doesn't seem to harm anything or steal your data.
More like an annoyance.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
Cromulent
Apr 24, 10:13 AM
No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
This is an interesting point I think. I actually find it much easier to respect real religious wackos who state blindly that every work in the Bible is true simply because they are not butchering their own religion.
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
Surely if god is all knowing and all powerful the Bible would have taken all of that into account. I mean just because man didn't know about all of these scientific ideas god surely must have done. I find it surprising that the messages he sent the prophets wouldn't take into account something that someday may invalidate large sections of the Bible as rubbish. So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 12:19 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
is a new idea to. New Fall
Blonde hair checkoct , with
Red And Blonde Hair Color
These londe hair highlights
Some hard londe, brown hair
by Hair Color Ideas in Light
Tagged: londe hair, runette,
Brunette+hair+colors+
a londe to a runette to
I love her londe hair and it
wedding hair hair color blonde
londe+hair+color+pictures
Hair Color For Brunettes 2010.
paolo-
Apr 6, 11:02 PM
I think your experience with the operating system will greatly depend on how you understand the computer and how open you are to a new interpretation of it.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
To start with the red x as an example.
Some people think an application is a window, when switching to a mac, they press the red x and don't understand why their computer starts being slow after a while when they fulled up the ram. From the sounds of it, you're fairly computer literate. Having the red x only close a window may seem strange at first. But once you understand you're closing the window and not the application, it actually makes sense. Some apps can continue to work without having a window open, like say iTunes. For other apps, it can be useful to keep an app loaded in the ram but not have any window open. Say you're using word, you finish up working on a document but know you'll be using in a few minutes, you can close the window but keep word in the ram. Then a few minutes later when you open the new document, boom it's open, no need to start word again.
That said, window/application management is the biggest difference to windows.
1. Apps don't usually run full screen and most of all don't need to run full screen. Really, look on your windows machine, everything runs in full screen and you don't see what the other apps are doing. And most of your apps are filled with white space. Even if you don't run them full screen, running windows side by side can be a pain because you'll open another one and all the other one will minimize or something like that. Okay, I think it's better with windows 7 but having multiple windows open is much easier in os x.
For example, the lack of document tree might be weird at first, but you just open a new finder window (cmnd-N or cmnd-double click on a folder) pop them side by side and just drag between them. Also, you can just use spotlight (magnifying glass or cmnd-space) to find what ever you want faster. But if you're doing web work, I can see you dealing a lot with complicated paths and having to move things around quite a bit, the list view is quite close to the tree view.
2. command-tab switches app, command-~ switches windows.
3. Expos� and spaces, use them :)
4. EVERYTHING HAS A KEYBOARD SHORTCUT. I had to put that one in caps, but really, everything useful has a keyboard shortcut. That might be why somethings that seem awkward at first are fairly easy to the experienced. Also, it works wonder with apps you use all the time, no need to mouse around menus to find functions you use all the time.
cmnd-Q : quits app, no need to open the dock right click on the icon and say quit application
cmnd-H : hides the app, most experienced users I know don't use the yellow button a lot. The yellow button drags you app to the dock, cmnd-H hides every window of the app, when clicking on it's icon in the dock, it'll resume like nothing happened.
cmnd-W closes a window, same as red button
5. If you think it should exist, it probably does. The UI is quite consistent, once you understand the logic behind things they tend to apply everywhere.
roguewave23
Jun 8, 12:22 AM
All you have to do is disable 3G under Settings > General > Network > Enable 3G OFF... and you will never drop calls. With 3G enabled, dropped calls happen all the time. My Blackberry (EDGE, not 3G) never drops calls, but my 3G Enabled Nokia dropped calls with the same frequency as my iPhone. All on AT&T network. Pretty easy to see that their 3G network is to blame. So when I want to talk, I turn 3G off... when I want to surf, it's on or I leave it off if I can access Wi-Fi. Bring on Verizon!! ASAP!!
Spectrum
Aug 29, 10:46 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
Care to enlighten us?
Care to enlighten us?
firestarter
Apr 23, 07:49 PM
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
You see a trend yet?
Er?
Yarweh uses Windows
Allah is still on CP/M
The Buddah uses Unix
And Atheists use Macs?
gorgeousninja
Apr 9, 06:36 AM
Oh, and try to be more mature in your reply next time please. That was uncalled for and childish.
actually the post was funny and to the point, your coming across as arrogant and ill informed.
actually the post was funny and to the point, your coming across as arrogant and ill informed.
Porchland
Sep 20, 09:46 AM
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
Marx55
Oct 26, 03:09 AM
ONE THING IS CLEAR:
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Multitasking, multiprocessor, multithreading Mac OS X and applications are needed right now and will be much needed in the future.
Because microprocessors will evolve not with more Mhz, but basically with more cores and more microprocessors per Mac.
And the same on Linux and Windows. So, hopefully, default true multithreading is around the corner. Or else all this power will be wasted for most applications.
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
The Beatles
Apr 21, 02:32 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
Haha LILO your either a strange breed or a fence sitter. You don't have any apple products but you post here. LOL that's brilliant. Well it's good to have you buddy, owning an apple product isn't mandatory but since most comments are discussing the apple experience, it could be helpful. I'm not talking using tour friends apple for a few minutes, I'm talking about using it day in/ day out.
I remember when the iPhone came out and playing with it at At&T, I said to myself "phh, big deal" but once I got it and lived with it, I ended up thinking how could I have lived without it. Great products, but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
So this site is for fanboys only?
Put down the pipe wiidsmoker, that's not what he's saying at all
And they say smoking is harmless, yeah right.
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
Haha LILO your either a strange breed or a fence sitter. You don't have any apple products but you post here. LOL that's brilliant. Well it's good to have you buddy, owning an apple product isn't mandatory but since most comments are discussing the apple experience, it could be helpful. I'm not talking using tour friends apple for a few minutes, I'm talking about using it day in/ day out.
I remember when the iPhone came out and playing with it at At&T, I said to myself "phh, big deal" but once I got it and lived with it, I ended up thinking how could I have lived without it. Great products, but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
No, of course not. I just find it interesting that someone who clearly dislikes a company and its products so much has so much free time to spend on a board for people who do enjoy said company and products.
So this site is for fanboys only?
Put down the pipe wiidsmoker, that's not what he's saying at all
And they say smoking is harmless, yeah right.
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?
bludragon06
Sep 11, 10:54 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
-Dave
jchung
Mar 18, 12:16 PM
Check out this post on modmyi.com - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html#post5900780
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
drewyboy
Mar 18, 07:05 PM
Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.
Huntn
Mar 13, 06:34 PM
I think the theory is the amount of solar energy falling on a 10sq mile area could be enough to satisfy our domestic energy needs.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
That's different than building a solar power plant and actually harvesting that energy, as solar plants are very inefficient.
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
Howdr
Mar 18, 01:10 PM
Look I'm not childish or demanding I just disagree with the way At&t has sucked many of us into the Unlimited plan from the beginning. After a time we all had it and they came out with the secrete 5GB idea. You want posts of me complaining back in 2008? Why ? I don't have to prove anything to anyone to state my opinion and dislike of the policy.
Don't point the finger at me and say I'm stealing, I paid for my internet use every month for over 3 years now.
I'll cut back on the righteous talk if the finger pointing stops.
I do not tether on a regular basis and have not for 6 months.
I do not Download with my phone except apps and docs.
I agree there can be abuse even with unlimited
(ie: the people who claim 90 and 120Gb a month DL)
You feel your right,
I feel I'm right,
we disagree, end of story :cool:
Also At&t will do this from time to time and unless something changes that stops them there is nothing we can do about it.
Don't point the finger at me and say I'm stealing, I paid for my internet use every month for over 3 years now.
I'll cut back on the righteous talk if the finger pointing stops.
I do not tether on a regular basis and have not for 6 months.
I do not Download with my phone except apps and docs.
I agree there can be abuse even with unlimited
(ie: the people who claim 90 and 120Gb a month DL)
You feel your right,
I feel I'm right,
we disagree, end of story :cool:
Also At&t will do this from time to time and unless something changes that stops them there is nothing we can do about it.
Digitalclips
May 2, 02:28 PM
About as huge as most windows ones!
Difference being Windows users don't have to accept an invitation then enter an admin user name and password for most stuff they get zonked with.
BTW, Just curious, did the Scottish folks that founded your town not know how to spell or is it a typo in your town name?
Difference being Windows users don't have to accept an invitation then enter an admin user name and password for most stuff they get zonked with.
BTW, Just curious, did the Scottish folks that founded your town not know how to spell or is it a typo in your town name?
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
If you do what he says? That's not enough - what have you learned? Salvation lies in sola fide, i.e. faith alone according to Luther. That is, faith in Jesus as the Saviour of the world. Protestants can do what they want and still go to Heaven. And if you're Catholic, you need to do good deeds and have faith in God - you can't get around the latter.
So - what happens to those who live a pious life and die without ever hearing about Jesus? According to my Christian teachers, those would go to hell. Those who grow up in totalitarian regimes where religion is banned, such as North Korea, will thus go from one instance of hell to another because they don't fulfill the requirements for salvation. Sounded quite self-righteous to me, but I cut the Christians some slack on that point anyway.
But what about the Jews? "Yes what about them?" They don't believe in Jesus as the world's Saviour either - not even today. "Oh, they are under some special set of rules so they will go to Heaven anyway." Yeah, right... The more I knew about Christians, the less I understood them. That's when I realised that something was fundamentally wrong (no pun intended).
If you do what he says? That's not enough - what have you learned? Salvation lies in sola fide, i.e. faith alone according to Luther. That is, faith in Jesus as the Saviour of the world. Protestants can do what they want and still go to Heaven. And if you're Catholic, you need to do good deeds and have faith in God - you can't get around the latter.
So - what happens to those who live a pious life and die without ever hearing about Jesus? According to my Christian teachers, those would go to hell. Those who grow up in totalitarian regimes where religion is banned, such as North Korea, will thus go from one instance of hell to another because they don't fulfill the requirements for salvation. Sounded quite self-righteous to me, but I cut the Christians some slack on that point anyway.
But what about the Jews? "Yes what about them?" They don't believe in Jesus as the world's Saviour either - not even today. "Oh, they are under some special set of rules so they will go to Heaven anyway." Yeah, right... The more I knew about Christians, the less I understood them. That's when I realised that something was fundamentally wrong (no pun intended).
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:19 PM
Not a joke at all.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
Sorry. That was rude of me.
Celibate Catholic priests raped children, and the head of your ********* church (god's supposed representative on Earth) helped to cover it up. You'll excuse me if I politely ignore whatever craziness the Catholic church has to say about anything.
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
Post reported. If you can't see fit to post without insulting the intelligence of other members, then maybe you should not post. Everyone makes mistakes. If you can't accept that others make them and address it in a civil manner, maybe you should sit back and chill for a minute.
Sorry. That was rude of me.
No comments:
Post a Comment