jasonbrennan
Jul 12, 12:34 PM
What about BLU RAY?
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:56 PM
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
Yes at present, the U.S. for instance could provide reliable wind sources easily all it requires is investment,do you know how much investment would be needed to go nuclear,bloody huge,30% of a huge spread of windfarms would be fine.Plus there are other alternative sources that can make the system more robust,what's needed is a long term fix not short term profits.
phpmaven
May 2, 11:17 AM
Wow, all of the people at Intego must be high fiving each other left and right today. They finally have some tangible reason for people to buy their product. :D
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
My jaw just hit the floor. Did you just make excuses for certain forms of rape? You couldn't have.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
Let's get to the bottom of this: is there any circumstance for which the Bible dictates that a woman who is raped should be put to death?
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
eXan
Sep 26, 01:55 AM
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. :(
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
And exporting videos to iPod format :D
archipellago
May 2, 05:00 PM
The Javascript exploit injected code into the Safari process to cause the download of a payload. That payload was the installer.
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
An installer is used to trick users to authenticate because the malware does not include privilege escalation via exploitation.
If you had any technical knowledge you could have figured that out yourself via the Intego article.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
Webkit2 will prevent user level access via an exploit, such as a Javascript exploit.
on the desktop/laptop side which browsers will use webkit2?
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
An installer is used to trick users to authenticate because the malware does not include privilege escalation via exploitation.
If you had any technical knowledge you could have figured that out yourself via the Intego article.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
Webkit2 will prevent user level access via an exploit, such as a Javascript exploit.
on the desktop/laptop side which browsers will use webkit2?
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
MorphingDragon
May 2, 09:33 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
It means magical freaken Unicorns! Apple should replace the padlock with this. Much more effective at getting the message across.
http://www.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/prototype_mercerunicorn-695x1024.jpg
(Yes you saw that correctly)
ehoui
Mar 11, 08:55 PM
I was overwhelmed watching the Tsunami videos on TV. I cannot imagine. My thoughts are with our Pacific neighbors.
Phil A.
Aug 29, 03:13 PM
That's not true. The UK will miss the targets that Tony Blair committed [us] to. Blair's standards were almost double the standard Kyoto targets. We'll miss the Blair targets (surprise surprise) but we should hit the Kyoto targets. See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4849672.stm).
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Of course, much of Kyoto is rendered moot because the US refuses to ratify the treaty because "it will harm the economy." :rolleyes:
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
GGJstudios
May 2, 11:36 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
Kid Red
Sep 12, 06:40 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
What!! HAHA, do you know your TV is downrezzing to 720? So, how does 1080i look better than 720? You can see the difference between downrezzed to 720p-1080i and 720p, but you can't see a difference between HD and a 480p DVD?!!
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
What!! HAHA, do you know your TV is downrezzing to 720? So, how does 1080i look better than 720? You can see the difference between downrezzed to 720p-1080i and 720p, but you can't see a difference between HD and a 480p DVD?!!
Either you need a new HD set, or a new HD provider. There is simply no comparison, really. HD is night and day, leaps and bounds better than DVD.
Apple's iTV would NEVER do HD, it simply is a chain between your HD tv and your mac that DOES do HD. Your computer is the player, so yes, I'd suspect I could record HD off my g5, and stream it to my HD set.
Can't wait!!!
emotion
Sep 20, 08:50 AM
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm glad I piped up about this now, thanks for that info tyr2.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm glad I piped up about this now, thanks for that info tyr2.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 01:28 PM
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church".
.
I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church".
.
I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
matticus008
Mar 20, 08:15 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
[...]
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
It's more than a copyright/fair use issue. Let's step back from that for a moment and consider this. It is different from buying a CD and ripping it to your hard drive. You created an iTunes account under which you explicitly agreed to abide by the terms of said account. Ignoring the issue of whether the copyright laws are fair and whether breaking the law is morally justified, here's the thing. You AGREED not to bypass or attempt to circumvent DRM, not to redistribute the files in any unauthorized manner, and to use iTunes alone to interface with the iTMS. And not just agreed passively, but EXPLICITLY agreed to those terms, and now you are breaking your word. How is that not morally wrong? If you didn't accept the terms presented, then there is no reason you should have agreed to them. It nullifies your power to complain. You said, "I don't think this business model is right" in your head, but clicked "I agree to these terms and conditions" anyway. Then you decide that the terms are inconvenient for you. Now you are breaking those terms, which in addition to being illegal on two fronts (copyright law and a legal TOS contract), is breaking your word. There's no way to construe that as morally sound.
To your final point, I agree that the quality of music sold is inferior, and most who would agree don't use the iTMS anyway. I use it for the incidental track that I like and come across randomly from various artists or that sounds good in the preview. My actual collection of albums demands a higher quality, and I hope iTunes offers 320kbps or lossless in the future for the same price. Then they'd make a lot more money from me, but I know that I'm not necessarily the target demographic. It certainly won't happen if piracy keeps its current rates, though.
r1ch4rd
Apr 23, 05:09 PM
I know a few, they are surgeons and oncologists.
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
Just ask their patients. ;)
I'm glad my doctor isn't omniscient... she might not approve! :)
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:25 PM
That all depends upon what branch of religion you follow/ believe in.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
It was a line from a Monty Python skit...:rolleyes:
As a former Catholic, I know all too well the Pope's role as manager of church affairs rather than arbitrator of dogma.
Fear still rules much of mainstream religion in the subtext. Fear of death, fear of hell, fear of divine retribution.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
It was a line from a Monty Python skit...:rolleyes:
As a former Catholic, I know all too well the Pope's role as manager of church affairs rather than arbitrator of dogma.
Fear still rules much of mainstream religion in the subtext. Fear of death, fear of hell, fear of divine retribution.
archipellago
May 2, 04:34 PM
All successful malware includes privilege escalation via exploitation. This does not. That is why malware never has become successful in OS X and is becoming less successful in Windows. The big issue with Windows in the past was the default account in Windows XP (admin) runs with elevated privileges by default so privilege escalation was not required for system level access.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
paulvee
Oct 30, 09:32 PM
I don't, but that's an excellent question. I could see wanting those myself. Have you asked third parties like WiebeTech (http://www.wiebetech.com/home.php) about it yet?
I have not. Been too busy living in FCP all day and night and trying to get Sonnet or Promax to get a working driver for the E4P card that's supposed to power the unit I got from Promax. It's on my list, but feel free to call them if you have time. There is power in numbers. If you call, post here and I'll call that day and maybe we can jar something in their R&D depts. :)
I have not. Been too busy living in FCP all day and night and trying to get Sonnet or Promax to get a working driver for the E4P card that's supposed to power the unit I got from Promax. It's on my list, but feel free to call them if you have time. There is power in numbers. If you call, post here and I'll call that day and maybe we can jar something in their R&D depts. :)
Phil A.
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
The one thing that struck me on the report is the amount of marks given to companies who have committed to a timescale. For example, Apple have committed to removing all BFRs but given no timescale and are marked as "bad". Dell have committed to removing all BFRs by 2009 and are marked "Good". Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles), and I think it's a bit misleading to give any company full marks simply because they have given a date that may be missed. I would have preferred to see those marked as Partially Good because clearly a commitment isn't as good as actually delivering on promises.
c.hilding
Oct 26, 08:55 PM
Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
No comments:
Post a Comment