samcraig
Mar 18, 08:58 AM
Sir what is being stolen?
Data=Data
At&t adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t)
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Data=Data
At&t adds the data together for a month of use in your plan
2=2=4gb of data a month, this has been explained by At&t over and over
So If I use 2gb and use it on the phone or tether its the same
I have unlimited
if I use 3 gb of data next month I have stole nothing
I used data
what is your point?
Crap about TOS, so what If I write a contract that you agree to buy Gas at my station for $2 a gallon when you fill up your car for a year. You then show up with a red gallon gas can I run out and say "The TOS says Car not Gas can" and I want to charge you $4 for the same gas now, this is not crap?
You know companies lie and steal from us everyday doesn't make it right.
I see you have an issue with those grandfathered, like we are stealing because we have unlimited? At&t has unlimited Data for $45 a month, its called Enterprise I see it in my account every month.
It's not my fault you did not own an Iphone before unlimited was stopped.
Also how about the two years I paid for 3g service and could not get 3g in my area? I disputed this with At&t and won.
Stop making excuses for bad behavior (By At&t)
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
more...
supmango
Mar 18, 12:02 PM
You realize there's a difference between those that "man" the CSR phones and the people responsible for the IT infrastructure, billing, etc, right?
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
Of course there is a difference. But only in the individuals I am dealing with. My personal experience with AT&T (~2 years ago) is that they have difficulty communicating very basic information internally. This is things like upgrade eligibility, data plan pricing (between corporate and personal); you know, the stuff you can get pretty easily on the website. Now why would this be for a "telecom" company? This piece of evidence points to a pattern of incompetence that likely goes pretty deep. And, if in fact people are getting these threats from AT&T, and they call to discuss it with them, good luck getting any good information from the rep on the other end of the phone as to how they know this is happening.
As other's have pointed out, it seems like there are a few legal loopholes in what AT&T is trying to do. If they send you a message and you don't call, it's on you and they can do that (in the contract). If they change your terms of service, they have to notify you within 30 days, and you can cancel the rest of your contract. If, however, you call and they can't provide sufficient evidence of what they are accusing you of doing, and they are changing your terms no matter what, you have the right to terminate service. My guess is that they won't want you to do that, unless they have evidence that you are overloading their network. In which case, I think they can change your terms and not let you out of the contract (if someone wants to look that up, great, I don't really care enough to do it).
Someone who has received one of these messages needs to call and see what they say, and then post back. I am really curious about what kind of evidence they give you. It might be something as simple as targeting high-volume users and accusing them of tethering (as others have already mentioned).
Just because the person that answers your call doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes doesn't mean ATT isn't FULLY aware of who is and who is not tethering or what websites you are viewing, etc.
Perhaps, but it took them long enough to figure it out, or at least to take any action on it.
It's one thing to have that information, its another thing to access it and get a report on usage patterns that reliably determines that it us tethering usage. Internet usage can vary widely depending on the user. So it almost requires a human eye to look at it and make that determination. Even then, it can be a hard call.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have.
more...
Peterkro
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
I agree it's a bit early to be speculating.However as shown by investigations into Chernobyl and Seven Mile Island in these situations small errors in design and human mistakes can all add up to unknown territory.It looks like a hydrogen explosion,super heated water = hydrogen and oxygen + ignitor = big bang.The presence of Caesium indicates some core damage.I hope those in Japan get through this with the least amount of pain possible.
more...
Photics
Apr 9, 09:09 AM
Get off your friggin high horse when saying that App store gaming isn't real gaming.
I liked reading your post. I pretty much agree with you wrote. Heh, I think video games kept me out of trouble too. I also think Nintendo is scared about the falling price of software. That's where their money comes from. For almost three decades, Nintendo has been making a lot of money by releasing consoles to sell their software at a premium.
An excellent example... is Urban Champion on Wiiware really worth $5?
That's madness! A title like that would get crushed on the iTunes App Store.
Although... I think iOS is geared more towards casual games, because that's easier to create on the system. Yet, I'm investing time and money in seeing if there is a market for "hardcore" games. I think there is. That's why I'm building BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports).
Apple is one step away from crushing Nintendo... that's adding an App Store to the Apple TV.
This hardcore vs. casual debate misses the main point. Nintendo was seen as the more casual of the big three console makers. Yet, Nintendo dominated the first few years of this generation's console war. If Apple enters this arena, it's big trouble for Nintendo... and the other console makers.
Heh, but as a developer, it's really cool for me. Apple has built something amazing here. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo... they could have made it easier for independent developers, but they didn't. Apple is now in a great position to dramatically change the way the industry works — and I think it's for the better.
I wandered into Best Buy last Christmas season and I saw the game of life in 3D on the XBOX. I thought it was a great way to modernize a classic game. I was getting ready to buy the XBOX 360. But then, lots of great iOS games started going on sale for 99� each. I bought nine... NINE NEW GAMES for less than $10.
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
I liked reading your post. I pretty much agree with you wrote. Heh, I think video games kept me out of trouble too. I also think Nintendo is scared about the falling price of software. That's where their money comes from. For almost three decades, Nintendo has been making a lot of money by releasing consoles to sell their software at a premium.
An excellent example... is Urban Champion on Wiiware really worth $5?
That's madness! A title like that would get crushed on the iTunes App Store.
Although... I think iOS is geared more towards casual games, because that's easier to create on the system. Yet, I'm investing time and money in seeing if there is a market for "hardcore" games. I think there is. That's why I'm building BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports).
Apple is one step away from crushing Nintendo... that's adding an App Store to the Apple TV.
This hardcore vs. casual debate misses the main point. Nintendo was seen as the more casual of the big three console makers. Yet, Nintendo dominated the first few years of this generation's console war. If Apple enters this arena, it's big trouble for Nintendo... and the other console makers.
Heh, but as a developer, it's really cool for me. Apple has built something amazing here. Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo... they could have made it easier for independent developers, but they didn't. Apple is now in a great position to dramatically change the way the industry works — and I think it's for the better.
I wandered into Best Buy last Christmas season and I saw the game of life in 3D on the XBOX. I thought it was a great way to modernize a classic game. I was getting ready to buy the XBOX 360. But then, lots of great iOS games started going on sale for 99� each. I bought nine... NINE NEW GAMES for less than $10.
If Nintendo doesn't adapt, it could be big trouble for them. I've seen the 3DS (http://photics.com/nintendo-3ds-a-surprising-disappointment) and I'm not impressed. I think the iPhone 4 is a much better portable gaming machine.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
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.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
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.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
more...
carmenodie
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
So does that means you didn't like Jungle Hunt?
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 05:57 AM
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Er, that's what your Mac is for.
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 10:31 PM
Would you agree that there is ample evidence of the imperfection of scripture, of the interference of church leadership to mold and shape the message of ancient scripture to suit their agenda, to manipulate and control the sheep? And that ancient scripture based solely on it's existence and the message of ancient man really adds no weight to the existence of God as described by these scriptures? The big question besides Does God exist? is Does it have the qualities, rules, and expectations, we imagine it to have? I've always asked was there this flurry of Godly attributed activity that ceased completely after the passing of Jesus? Fact, fiction, or superstition? We have no way on this Earth of verifying the validity of ancient messages.
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
pourhadi
Mar 18, 11:37 AM
This is just going to hurt Apple in the eyes of the music industry.
The argument that, "It's gonna happen anyway, so they shouldn't complain" is rhetorical nonsense-- this is the RIAA we're talking about, people.
The argument that, "It's gonna happen anyway, so they shouldn't complain" is rhetorical nonsense-- this is the RIAA we're talking about, people.
more...
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
Other than a -O to enable/disable any optimisations at all, what effect can you achieve with the remaining optimistion flags to GCC? I'm more surprised by the lack of variation they achieve on PPC than the actual relative performance - having looked at the PPC code briefly, it looks like I'd expect it to be slow :mad:
The result for my OSX 10.2 DP 800 G4 on the floating test is 85.56 seconds. I used -O and -funroll-loops as flags.
So this is about 45% the speed of my P3-Xeon 700. Not very good at all, but it falls within the ream of believeability.
Other than a -O to enable/disable any optimisations at all, what effect can you achieve with the remaining optimistion flags to GCC? I'm more surprised by the lack of variation they achieve on PPC than the actual relative performance - having looked at the PPC code briefly, it looks like I'd expect it to be slow :mad:
mac jones
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
Common sense would tell you the reactor itself didn't explode some 4 hours ago.
Don't you think if that had been the case the headlines would be everywhere? Considering it would trigger large government response and evacuations, it wouldn't exactly be easy to hide, and given how the media jumps at any bone any source throws them just to be first rather than accurate should show that it wasn't the reactor itself because all they are reporting is an unknown explosion. These plants aren't exactly simple, "Here's the gate, there's the reactor." They are very complex, large facilities with many many parts.
Something exploded at the complex facility, but it wasn't the reactor.
Not gonna bother replying to the rest at this point being I'm on a phone.
You sure about this? I hope your right.
more...
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
more...
skunk
Apr 24, 11:00 AM
So why would you need to adapt your beliefs, unless of course the god doesn't exist and the Bible was just written by a bunch of blokes performing a rather cynical political exercise 2,000 years ago.How could you even think such a thing?
:eek:
:eek:
bradc
Jul 12, 04:47 PM
Maybe Apple will give you a choice.
That's what I was going to say. Maybe Apple will turn more like Dell's website with a 'plethora' of options. So there might be a bunch of possible configurations?
That's what I was going to say. Maybe Apple will turn more like Dell's website with a 'plethora' of options. So there might be a bunch of possible configurations?
more...
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:21 AM
The funny thing is if I had never read a message board I would have never went and looked at a PC, because I just have always bought Macs, after 4 or 5 years, just went to the dealer and picked up a new one, I never used a PC except at school, which schools stuff is always years out of date anyway, so I just figured that this is what you had to pay for a good, fast, computer that will last 4 or 5 years, I have always been comfortable and pleased with my Macs, but this next when the DV is ready to be replaced, I am going to be smarter then I used to be and not just walk into the Apple dealer and pick up a new one, I am going to shop around and see if I like these all new PC's with XP. If I can save money and end up with a much faster, easier to use computer, then I am dumb to just go Apple like I always have. I don't know a lot about this freaking processor or that floating point, gigaflop, or whatever crap, I just want to buy something that works well and is a good value and I am sorry to say, but I have been blind to PC's and I see they have came so much farther then Macs have and also Microsoft is making some excellent software now. I am sad...because I used to love my Mackie and Booker, but now I get the point how crappy they really are compared to the PC's. ;o(
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
more...
JediZenMaster
Mar 18, 10:36 AM
ATT could use better price discrimination policies. There are many people who would like tethering, unrestricted 3G etc, who are more than willing to pay. Many would also give up unlimited data as long as ATT gave quality service at a decent price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
So have you seen what verizon charges for tethering? This forum is extremely slighted towards AT&T. Yet Verizon charges more for tethering and they seem to get a free pass.
So compared to the other carrier that offers the iPhone the tethering with AT&T is a "decent" price.
more...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 03:30 PM
Wow I missed a lot by spending all of Friday away from this board. I am way behind in posts here, and I'm sure I'll miss a lot of things worth comment. But anyway, the code fragment:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
for(x2=1; x2<=20000; x2++) {
x3 = x1*x2;
}
}
Is a very poor benchmark. Compilers may be able to really dig into that and make the resulting executable perform the calculate radically different. In fact, I can tell you the answer outright: x1=20000, x2=20000, x3 = 400000000. It took me 2 seconds or so. Does this mean that I am a better computer than a G4 and a P4? No, it means I realized that the loop can be reduced to simple data assignments. I have a better compiler, thats it.
Anyway, lets pretend that for whatever reason compilers did not simplify that loop AT ALL. Note that this would be a stupid stupid compiler. At each stage, x1 is something, we ++x2, and we set x3 = x1 * x2. Now notice that we cannot set x3 until the result of X2++ is known. On a pipelined processor that cannot execute instructions out of order, this means that I have a big "bubble" in the pipeline as I wait for the new x2 before I can multiply. However, after the x3 is started into the pipe, the next instruction is just another x2++ which does not depend on x3, so I can do it immediately. On a 7-stage in-order chip like a G4, this means that I fill two stages of the pipe and then have to wait for the results on the other end before I can continue. You see that this is very inefficient (28% or so). However, the G3 is a 4-stage design and so 2/4 of the stages can stay busy, resulting in a 50% efficientcy (so a 700mhz G3 is "the same as" a 350mhz G3 at 100% and a 800mhz G4 is "the same as" a 210mhz G4 at 100%). These are of course simplified cases, the actual result may very a bit for some obscure reason.
Actually the above stuff is inaccurate. The G3 sports 2 integer units AFAIK, so it can do x3 = x1*x2 at the same time as it is doing x2++ (for the next loop of course, not this one). This means that both pipes start one bit of work, then wait for it to get out the other end, then do one bit of work again. So this is 25% efficientcy. A hypothetical single-pipe G3 would do x3 = x1*x3 and then do x2++, however it could not do x3 = x1 * x2 again until the x2++ was out the other end, which takes 4 cycles and started one after the previos x3 = x1*x2, which should mean 3 "bubble" stages and an efficientcy of 20%.
Actually, it may be worse than that. Remember that this is in a loop. The loop means a compare instruction (are we done yet?) followed by a jump depending on the results of the compare. We therefore have 4 instructions in PPC I think per loop, and we can't compare x2 to 20000 until x2++ has gone through all the pipe stages. (Oh no!) And we can't jump until we know r]the result of the compare (oh no!). Seeing the pattern? Wanna guess what the efficientcy is for a really stupid compiled version of this "benchmark"? A: really freaking low.
I'll see about adding more thoughts later.
ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:43 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
more...
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 PM
Here's a little list i put together last week of my predictions for the next 6 months or so of a roadmap (whenever merom goes to 800 MHz on its bus, so maybe 9 months)
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.
Portable:
MacBook: Yonah through 1q 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
MacBook Pro: Yonah through 3q2006, 667MHz bus Merom through 1q2007,
800MHz bus Merom thereafter
Desktop:
Mac mini: Yonah through 1q2007, 667MHz bus Merom thereafter
iMac: Yonah through 3q2006, 800MHz bus Conroe thereafter
Mac Pro: 1333MHz bus Woodcrest
I agree for the most part, but there is no conroe with 800MHz FSB, and the only core 2 desktop processor with it will be a single variant of Allendale at 1.6GHz. If it gets Core 2, iMac will see at least 1066MHz FSB.
more...
Evangelion
Jul 12, 02:51 PM
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
more...
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
more...
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 06:24 PM
I didn't know before that "DVD Jon" is a movie star as well. He plays himself in the documentary Info Wars (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0415067/).
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
Hey, I wonder if we can get that movie on DVD and play it on our Linux systems. :D
more...