SwiftLives
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
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.
blackpond
May 2, 09:29 AM
People use Safari? ... :confused:
Th3Crow
May 3, 10:29 AM
You mean running stuff like iphoto?
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
I would dispute your claims that PC versions are faster and more feature-laden than their Mac versions. And sure, there is going to be some software for which there is no Mac counterpart. But the same can be said for the reverse. It's not like the 90s - back then this was a valid argument. Today it's a much different story; the Mac marketshare has risen to a point where it is in the best interests of software developers to create a Mac version.
There are indeed PC versions for most everything I do on my Mac. My point was simply that it tends to be easier to do on the Mac, and much less frustrating. Having used both, I can tell you that (IMO) Macs make the work seem much less cumbersome. I enjoy creating promotional videos, for example on my Mac. Or fun videos of my kids (using iMovie - which makes it so fast and easy - and professional looking - that the kids can put on a skit at the beginning of a birthday party, and at the end of the party I can give each child a DVD of their skit to take home). Doing it on a PC is painful. Graphic design and web development is fantastic on the Mac - and just plain irritating on a PC.
We can debate this until we're blue in the face - this is just my opinion as a heavy user of myriad applications, and I will concede that I have not tried every possible text editor out there to see if something compares to BBEdit. But I don't need to. I love my Mac - always have - and I really hate the experience on a Windows PC. But if you are as happy on your PC as I am with my Mac, I'm not going to call you names or belittle your choice. To each their own. I just take issue with the whole idea that we Mac users NEED to run Windows. We don't. Ever.
PC versions of cross platform apps are typically faster, have more features than their mac counterparts. That's if there even is a version for mac. Its viable to not own a PC anymore because macs use PC hardware now and can run windows. PC users have no use for osx at all but many mac users still need to have windows
I would dispute your claims that PC versions are faster and more feature-laden than their Mac versions. And sure, there is going to be some software for which there is no Mac counterpart. But the same can be said for the reverse. It's not like the 90s - back then this was a valid argument. Today it's a much different story; the Mac marketshare has risen to a point where it is in the best interests of software developers to create a Mac version.
There are indeed PC versions for most everything I do on my Mac. My point was simply that it tends to be easier to do on the Mac, and much less frustrating. Having used both, I can tell you that (IMO) Macs make the work seem much less cumbersome. I enjoy creating promotional videos, for example on my Mac. Or fun videos of my kids (using iMovie - which makes it so fast and easy - and professional looking - that the kids can put on a skit at the beginning of a birthday party, and at the end of the party I can give each child a DVD of their skit to take home). Doing it on a PC is painful. Graphic design and web development is fantastic on the Mac - and just plain irritating on a PC.
We can debate this until we're blue in the face - this is just my opinion as a heavy user of myriad applications, and I will concede that I have not tried every possible text editor out there to see if something compares to BBEdit. But I don't need to. I love my Mac - always have - and I really hate the experience on a Windows PC. But if you are as happy on your PC as I am with my Mac, I'm not going to call you names or belittle your choice. To each their own. I just take issue with the whole idea that we Mac users NEED to run Windows. We don't. Ever.
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:04 PM
That is an interesting idea, but Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo) has survived 122 years of business... ;)
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
miniConvert
Oct 7, 06:21 PM
Android should easily surpass the iPhone in market share, IMHO. So what?
It's an OS written to run on a multitude of hardware and is/will be heavily customised by both manufacturers and operators. Due to this I doubt it'll ever match the iPhone for quality, while in terms of market share it should clean up.
It's an OS written to run on a multitude of hardware and is/will be heavily customised by both manufacturers and operators. Due to this I doubt it'll ever match the iPhone for quality, while in terms of market share it should clean up.
samcraig
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
X2 - I think they are going to require "real" proof that the user is tethering. What is to say the user is not just using a lot of data via the phone? I am sorry, but this really appears of a way to transfer people away from the unlimited plan.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
The incorrect assumption would be that ATT could never or can't or however you want to phrase it determine if you are using date via tether or not.
And there are always ways. As someone who works for a major IT firm - there are always ways.
Just because ATT didn't act on it before doesn't mean they couldn't tell. And just because they didn't act on it before - doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do it now. It's at their discretion as to pursue or not pursue breaches in the agreement.
Another reason for folks to move over to Verizon
The incorrect assumption would be that ATT could never or can't or however you want to phrase it determine if you are using date via tether or not.
And there are always ways. As someone who works for a major IT firm - there are always ways.
Just because ATT didn't act on it before doesn't mean they couldn't tell. And just because they didn't act on it before - doesn't mean they aren't entitled to do it now. It's at their discretion as to pursue or not pursue breaches in the agreement.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
steve_hill4
Jul 12, 06:08 AM
just wondering, have you not seen my posts on the dell workstation? that has dual woodcrests, and, be still my heart 16X PCI EXPRESS! :) That's how it has the quadro FX 4500 video card. And you can even get a version that has a riser for a 2nd PCI-Express 16X slot so you can have 2x the Quadro 4500!
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
Exactly, the logic board will not be available off the shelf, so we don't know what will be on it yet.
Oh and if I'm not mistaken, isn't this a motherboard for Woodcrest that supports PCI express 16x?
http://www.iwill.net/product_2.asp?p_id=109
Also, According to the articles on the appleinsider site, apple has had INTEL doing the logic board.
Exactly, the logic board will not be available off the shelf, so we don't know what will be on it yet.
Oh and if I'm not mistaken, isn't this a motherboard for Woodcrest that supports PCI express 16x?
http://www.iwill.net/product_2.asp?p_id=109
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 09:29 AM
Yeah, he seems to have forgotton those personal computers known as the Apple ][, the Commodore PET, the Atari 400 and 800, and so on that predated the IBM PC. He's creating a very limited definition that ignores history.
The way I interpreted his comments was exactly the opposite -- he is specifically mentioning the fact that there are "PC" as in IBM PC ("capital PC"), but there are also "personal computers", such as your examples above (his "lower case pc"). I think we're all saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
The way I interpreted his comments was exactly the opposite -- he is specifically mentioning the fact that there are "PC" as in IBM PC ("capital PC"), but there are also "personal computers", such as your examples above (his "lower case pc"). I think we're all saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
bfar5
Aug 17, 07:30 AM
Ridiculous number of dropped calls. What a terrible excuse for customer service this was. Whenever I have called them about any other issues, they have been really helpful. When this guy found out I had Iphone4, he acted like he couldn't get me off the phone fast enough. Told me "the phone has problems, get the bumper, have I resolved your issues?"
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
My device is quirky. The proximity sensor has a mind of its own, it gets hung up on tasks daily, the reception is terrible. For ME, Iphone4 SUCKS and when people ask me if I recommend it, I'm with CR. Miss my 3gs which my husband is enjoying. Crap.
Corban987
Apr 26, 11:44 PM
I have recently started using OS X on a hackintosh, I have 1 windows Vista, 1 Win 7, and 1 Hackintosh.
I will start with the things I do not like about OS X
- Finder is really bad, the sorting of files is not very nice as folders are sorted among the files, and I like in windows how I can click the date column and the files resort, this is not available in Finder
- Full Screen, I can't make my apps full screen, I am used to it now and don't even full screen my windows apps anymore.
- Windows short cuts, F2 - Rename, Win D - Desktop, Win R - Run (I used this to load calc, cmd, notepad faster than using the mouse and start bar), Win E - loads explorer, (I still find myself trying this on OS X to load finder), using keyboard to navigate through explorer
- Office is better on Windows than on Mac
- those damn dstore files it leaves everywhere
- No KOREAN commercial websites accept anything other than Internet Explorer, so much for customer choice.
Now what I liked about OS X
- Launch bar - this is so much better than the windows start bar/toolbar
- everything works, drivers aren't crashing or conflicting
- Timemachine
- No Virus protection required, I had to be careful about websites in windows, well not so much in OS X
- Sleep - so fast to wake up, and so fast to sleep
- Keyboard is much nicer
- Easier to install/uninstall applications
- Adding/removing items on the launch bar
- simple control panel where its obvious what everything is
- boot up time even after 12 months of running and no matter how many programs I have installed, windows just takes forever to load, the more you add to windows the longer it takes to load
- no annoying questions, example when installing on windows you have to answer yes about 10 times then finish, on OS X just drag to APPS and then click it to run (may need password first time its run)
- Force quit option on right click to kill unresponsive apps - no need to CTRL ALT DEL to get to task manager (then wait for that to load if it will)
- Can run windows on OSX using Parallels or other virtualisation software, and it does it better than the virtualisation software in windows, ie. I can run the Windows app in the virtual machine but the VM is hidden only the app window is visible so it actually looks like it is running in OSX as a OSX application as the VM machine and desktop is all hidden.
- Can dual boot Windows and OS X (PC cannot do this), so if I choose to like Windows better I can just not boot into OSX and I end up with great looking windows machine.
- Less software to choose from so at least I know the software that is available is not software that is going to harm my computer and that it will most likely work (if not I find a windows version and run it in the VM)
- The filesystem is more organised, so less looking for files
- No DLL's to worry about
- No registry hacks, errors, or cleaning
- Dual monitors is easier to set up and control
- iPhoto - at least the mac comes with decent video and picture software
Now Mac vs PC (Hardware not OS)
- Mac is more compact
- Mac is much more lighter, comparing case, screen to the iMac (iMac is Half the weight)
- Mac has significantly better design and style
- PC is more upgradable (but I used to think thiis was good - I never upgraded any PC of mine even though this was why I always got big towers, extra PCI slots, made sure I had SLI - I never ended up upgrading to take advantage of this, my upgrades ended up with better motherboards and video cards at same time)
- PC can fit more Hard Disks internal to machine, Mac is either NAS or USB
- Apples pricing is biased to the US market, Both apps and hardware are cheaper in the US than in any other country even after taking into consideration freight, Tax etc.
I will start with the things I do not like about OS X
- Finder is really bad, the sorting of files is not very nice as folders are sorted among the files, and I like in windows how I can click the date column and the files resort, this is not available in Finder
- Full Screen, I can't make my apps full screen, I am used to it now and don't even full screen my windows apps anymore.
- Windows short cuts, F2 - Rename, Win D - Desktop, Win R - Run (I used this to load calc, cmd, notepad faster than using the mouse and start bar), Win E - loads explorer, (I still find myself trying this on OS X to load finder), using keyboard to navigate through explorer
- Office is better on Windows than on Mac
- those damn dstore files it leaves everywhere
- No KOREAN commercial websites accept anything other than Internet Explorer, so much for customer choice.
Now what I liked about OS X
- Launch bar - this is so much better than the windows start bar/toolbar
- everything works, drivers aren't crashing or conflicting
- Timemachine
- No Virus protection required, I had to be careful about websites in windows, well not so much in OS X
- Sleep - so fast to wake up, and so fast to sleep
- Keyboard is much nicer
- Easier to install/uninstall applications
- Adding/removing items on the launch bar
- simple control panel where its obvious what everything is
- boot up time even after 12 months of running and no matter how many programs I have installed, windows just takes forever to load, the more you add to windows the longer it takes to load
- no annoying questions, example when installing on windows you have to answer yes about 10 times then finish, on OS X just drag to APPS and then click it to run (may need password first time its run)
- Force quit option on right click to kill unresponsive apps - no need to CTRL ALT DEL to get to task manager (then wait for that to load if it will)
- Can run windows on OSX using Parallels or other virtualisation software, and it does it better than the virtualisation software in windows, ie. I can run the Windows app in the virtual machine but the VM is hidden only the app window is visible so it actually looks like it is running in OSX as a OSX application as the VM machine and desktop is all hidden.
- Can dual boot Windows and OS X (PC cannot do this), so if I choose to like Windows better I can just not boot into OSX and I end up with great looking windows machine.
- Less software to choose from so at least I know the software that is available is not software that is going to harm my computer and that it will most likely work (if not I find a windows version and run it in the VM)
- The filesystem is more organised, so less looking for files
- No DLL's to worry about
- No registry hacks, errors, or cleaning
- Dual monitors is easier to set up and control
- iPhoto - at least the mac comes with decent video and picture software
Now Mac vs PC (Hardware not OS)
- Mac is more compact
- Mac is much more lighter, comparing case, screen to the iMac (iMac is Half the weight)
- Mac has significantly better design and style
- PC is more upgradable (but I used to think thiis was good - I never upgraded any PC of mine even though this was why I always got big towers, extra PCI slots, made sure I had SLI - I never ended up upgrading to take advantage of this, my upgrades ended up with better motherboards and video cards at same time)
- PC can fit more Hard Disks internal to machine, Mac is either NAS or USB
- Apples pricing is biased to the US market, Both apps and hardware are cheaper in the US than in any other country even after taking into consideration freight, Tax etc.
gb3651
Mar 19, 07:46 PM
You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:28 PM
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Thomas2006
Oct 26, 12:26 PM
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The computers will not become obsolete much2 sooner but your bragging rights will.
The computers will not become obsolete much2 sooner but your bragging rights will.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:30 PM
One thing i was just thinking... with some laptop vendors considering Conroe due to it being pretty damn efficient, how about this one:
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
unlikely. MBPs already have heating issues, and Yonah core duo standard voltage is designed with a TDP of up to 31W. Merom has up to 35W.
Conroe and Allendale both are TDP 65W throughout the range except teh Conroe extremes which are TDP of 80W. No info yet on the Low Votlage or Ultra Low Voltage Meroms, but if any high end processor beyond merom were to get into the MBPs, which i doubt due to the need for a different socket, i'd actually call it as Woodcrest!
The dual core Xeon 5148 Low Voltage, clocking at 2.33GHz with 4MB L2 cache and 1333MT/S FSB has a TDP of 40W- only 5W higher than the Meroms.
MacBook - Merom - optimized for LONG battery life
MacBook Pro - Conroe - optimized to be a true mobile professional workstation
unlikely. MBPs already have heating issues, and Yonah core duo standard voltage is designed with a TDP of up to 31W. Merom has up to 35W.
Conroe and Allendale both are TDP 65W throughout the range except teh Conroe extremes which are TDP of 80W. No info yet on the Low Votlage or Ultra Low Voltage Meroms, but if any high end processor beyond merom were to get into the MBPs, which i doubt due to the need for a different socket, i'd actually call it as Woodcrest!
The dual core Xeon 5148 Low Voltage, clocking at 2.33GHz with 4MB L2 cache and 1333MT/S FSB has a TDP of 40W- only 5W higher than the Meroms.
Small White Car
May 5, 10:23 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
OllyW
Apr 21, 03:06 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
At least they don't have to worry about other people thinking they are smug arrogant tosspots. :rolleyes:
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
At least they don't have to worry about other people thinking they are smug arrogant tosspots. :rolleyes:
dumb terminal
May 6, 02:42 AM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
manu chao
Mar 19, 12:10 PM
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
tjcampbell
Apr 24, 05:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
They are either born into it or fall into it when they reach a low point in their life. The world does NOT need religion. Be kind to each other. Don't be a jerk. You do not need an organised myth-based institution to help you with this.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
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.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
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.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
res1233
May 2, 10:28 AM
It is safer to run under an administrator account all the time in OS X than in Windows. On Windows, the administrator is almost the equivalent to the root account on *nixes and as such has unrestricted access to any and all files on the system.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
On OS X and other *nix systems, however, the administrator account still can't do all that much without entering the root password. Admin accounts can't touch anything in the System folder. About the worst malware can do, even under an admin account in OS X, is one of the following:
1) Install itself in your user account Library folder
2) Install itself in the system's secondary Library folder (/Library/)
In both cases, the offending executables/libraries/whatever are easily removed - In the case of #1, create a new account and copy your old stuff over. In the case of #2, check the startup folder within, perhaps frameworks in some cases (though I have never seen malware that makes use of the OS X framework system) and delete the malware files. The files and folders contained in the Library folder are all nicely, neatly labeled and any malware should stick out like a sore thumb - it can't hide as something like EXPLORE32.EXE.
Yep. This is what Unix security means. Tight permissions control. Permission checking needs to at some point become a background service though, because the way it is, if some badly written application with root access changes the permissions on a folder for whatever reason, it's possible for malware written to look for these permission problems to take advantage of it. But other than that, yes, there is no way to access files outside of /Library and /Users/[username] without permission.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment