edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:22 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
The Eastern Orthodox church is the oldest church, yet I think anyone would be hard-pressed to label it as fundamentalist.
Have a look at St. John Chrysostom's Easter homily:
Let all pious men rejoice and all lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast; let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord, let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward; let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join in the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being too late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first.
He gives rest to him who comes on the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first: yes, He has pity on the last and he serves the first; He rewards the one and is generous to the other; He repays the deed and praises the effort.
Come, all of you: enter into the joy of your Lord. You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward; you rich and you poor, dance together; you sober and you weaklings, celebrate the day; you who have kept the Fast and you who have not, rejoice today.
The table is richly laden; enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fatted one; let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith; all of you receive the riches of His goodness. Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed; let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave; let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it; He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom; He has angered it by allowing it to taste of His flesh.
When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: "O Hades, you have been angered by encountering Him in the nether world." Hades is angered because it is frustrated. It is angered because it has been mocked. It is angered because it has been destroyed. It is angered because it has been reduced to naught. It is angered because it is now captive. It seized a body, and lo! It discovered God. It seized earth, and behold! It encountered heaven. It seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible.
"O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" Christ is risen, and you are abolished! Christ is risen and the demons are cast down! Christ is risen and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen and life is freed! Christ is risen and the tomb is emptied of its dead! For Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the leader and reviver of those who had fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
Eastern Orthodox celebrates life and downplays the "fire and brimstone" of hell, which isn't even in the Bible anyway, all that came later. In the Old Testament hell was being denied the presence of God and feeling shame, not eternal torment at the hands of demons.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
The Eastern Orthodox church is the oldest church, yet I think anyone would be hard-pressed to label it as fundamentalist.
Have a look at St. John Chrysostom's Easter homily:
Let all pious men rejoice and all lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast; let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord, let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward; let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join in the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being too late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first.
He gives rest to him who comes on the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first: yes, He has pity on the last and he serves the first; He rewards the one and is generous to the other; He repays the deed and praises the effort.
Come, all of you: enter into the joy of your Lord. You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward; you rich and you poor, dance together; you sober and you weaklings, celebrate the day; you who have kept the Fast and you who have not, rejoice today.
The table is richly laden; enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fatted one; let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith; all of you receive the riches of His goodness. Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed; let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave; let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it; He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom; He has angered it by allowing it to taste of His flesh.
When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: "O Hades, you have been angered by encountering Him in the nether world." Hades is angered because it is frustrated. It is angered because it has been mocked. It is angered because it has been destroyed. It is angered because it has been reduced to naught. It is angered because it is now captive. It seized a body, and lo! It discovered God. It seized earth, and behold! It encountered heaven. It seized the visible, and was overcome by the invisible.
"O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" Christ is risen, and you are abolished! Christ is risen and the demons are cast down! Christ is risen and the angels rejoice! Christ is risen and life is freed! Christ is risen and the tomb is emptied of its dead! For Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the leader and reviver of those who had fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.
Eastern Orthodox celebrates life and downplays the "fire and brimstone" of hell, which isn't even in the Bible anyway, all that came later. In the Old Testament hell was being denied the presence of God and feeling shame, not eternal torment at the hands of demons.
Evangelion
Jul 12, 03:55 AM
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.
I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.
Since your concern is the high price of the Xeon, I find it ironic that you want to use XE in a Mac, since XE is also VERY expensive. I believe they cost about $1000 a piece.
I believe that the Woodcrests start at around $400, which isn't outrageous price. For the price of once XE you could have two 2Ghz Woodcrests.
more...
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
more...
ryme4reson
Oct 9, 12:56 PM
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
I am in a critical thinking class, and we spend 3 hrs a day, 2 times a week talking about people who rationalize like BackToTheMac. "No one will ever change my mind"
That is complete suppression of all the facts that are given to you. I think its a shame that you logically in your mind come to these conclusions. I bet you think Friday the 13th is dangerous, and you have lucky numbers huh :)
NikeTalk
Mar 18, 01:34 PM
Knowing AT&T they may just switch every iPhone user over, now that'd be hilarious..
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:17 PM
The goal of any ethical psychological treatment is only to treat the conflict that causes pain. The patient is considered healthy when his thoughts and behaviors do not interfere with his ability to lead a fulfilling life, not when he changes his thoughts and behaviors to ones endorsed by the therapist. Anything else is abuse of the patient and psychological malpractice.
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation. He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it. In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex. You may already have read my post about Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. Again, that organization doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation.
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
To tell someone who is in conflict over his sexual orientation that he must change it to be well is no different than telling an anorexic to lose more weight so she doesn't feel so fat. It is indulging the conflict to produce conforming behavior rather than treating the conflict to produce a healthy patient.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation. He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it. In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex. You may already have read my post about Fr. John Harvey's apostolate to people who feel same-sex attraction. Again, that organization doesn't try to change anyone's sexual orientation.
more...
The Beatles
Apr 9, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
That's why I don't bother ever going to appleinsider. Their headlines are sensationalized BS.
Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".
Were they pushed or pulled?
That's why I don't bother ever going to appleinsider. Their headlines are sensationalized BS.
bf2008
May 2, 09:05 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
TheT
Oct 7, 10:39 AM
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Ino
Sep 20, 01:57 AM
It sounds like it will not have HDMI or TiVo features, and it will play movies out of iTunes, which screams to me that it will only play .mp4 and .m4v files much like my 5G iPod.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/picture1jq2.png
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4561/picture1jq2.png
But it sure looks better than it sounds...;)
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 26, 07:34 AM
Interesting question. One of my thoughts on why people follow a religion are that they were raised with it, so it becomes a tradition. You just do it because you always have done it without much thought to it. This one is an especially hard reason to overcome, because as a child, you want to believe that your parents and family have all the answers. It's hard to admit that they don't or that they led you down a wrong path. But you have to ask yourself, if you crash landed on an island as a small child (a la Blue Lagoon), would you be following Islam, Christianity or any of the established religions? No, you would not. You wouldn't even KNOW about them. So religion is largely handed down socially. It's even geographical in nature to a large extent.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
Huntn
Mar 11, 06:08 PM
Not one but two reactors could be headed for meltdown. U.S. Rushes Coolant to Japan Nuclear Plant to Prevent Meltdown (http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/u-s-rushes-coolant-to-japan-nuclear-plant-to-prevent-a-meltdown/). Primary power was lost. A backup generator failed to start. Plant is venting radioactive steam... God, I hope this does not happen.
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
11.31am: The Associated Press has more details on the state of emergency issued at nuclear plant after its cooling system failed:
Chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano says the nuclear power plant in Fukushima developed a mechanical failure in the system needed to cool the reactor after it was shut down in Friday's earthquake.
He said the measure was a precaution and there was no radiation leak at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant. He said the facility was not in immediate danger.
----------------------------------------------
Thats pretty bloody serious.... eeeek :eek:
more...
Eso
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
more...
ryme4reson
Oct 8, 11:54 AM
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology.
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
For all purposes I think the PPC is a fast architecture, BUT and here is the but lets say the factor is 1.2 or 1.3, or 2.0 (for BACKTOTHEMAC) All that was well and fine when the clock speed was not a HUGE gap as it is today. Now I have the fastest Single Proc and my 933 is NOT NOT NOT the same speed as a 1.8PV or Athlon 1800+ Also, the 933 was offered by Apple only a few months ago, where a 1.8 can be had in the low end lines on the PC world where the iMac is supposed to compete.
My 933 on the 133 bus is only going to do so much. With the 933 they increased the pipelines(just like PV to scale MHZ) and increased the cache. As far as speed, I think Windows itself is fast software(2K and XP, and the x86 as an entire arch is fast (SYS, MEM, CPU, etc) It may not be the most effecient, or crash proof but who cares, its 2-3X in terms of speed FASTER(Machine speed, not actual). OSX.x may never be as fast as its Microsoft counterpart, but the services and UI are of greater importance.
Also, while intel released 3.0GHZ and new tech after new tech, are you still going to say Apples newest offering in 4 months say (Dual 1.4, with 2 SUPERDRIVES, or some other goodie to direct you away from its slow speed increase) is going to keep up?
Face it, as it stands x86 is CHEAPER, and FASTER, BUT I avoid PC's at all costs. 1. I live in Cupertino (Home of Apple) 2. I am more than an Apple user, I am a fan of its products.
This is an Apple site, and I am on an Apple as we speak, but I will not fall for the fallacious arguments you are trying to make
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 08:23 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
Totally agree. The other day I was in the queue at the grocery store and some dude was playing some noob game on his iOS phone... I was like "dude, you should be playing that on a PS3" and he was all "yeah but where would I plug it in and set-up the TV?" and I was like "just use the NGP" and he said "Great, where can I buy that?"
What a d**k he was.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:29 PM
no, i've not posted these before...
Not you - someone presented these to me before. They have been heavily edited to suit a point. In some cases, what's being said contradicts an earlier sentence.
the point of
is that if he says whoever guards his chastity is guaranteed paradise then the opposite is true.
Yes. However, remaining in chastity is a real gem. I don't think anyone, till date has ever achieved that.
Most honour killings occur in muslim majority countries, or are perpetrated by muslims.
Correlation does not mean causation. (This phrase is hardwired into my head - it was the only mark I lost in a Biology A Level paper).
and also:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion? A person might kill his offspring or offsprings offspring for dishonouring the family.
The thing with that, and I remember someone talking about it, is that there had to be certain conditions which were met before honour killing was even an option.
In the cases I've seen, it is murder without trial. Now Islam upholds the sanctity of life, and the Quran declares that killing one innocent human being is akin to killing the entire human race.
Now, the problem of �honour killings� is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.
Islamic Scholars have continuously condemned honour killings. It is not for us to judge, that is for Allah to decide.
in your refutations of my point you don't seem to find any problem with women being beaten for being unchaste lol.
[quote]
You didn't bring it to my attention ;)
[quote]
my point in mentioning Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196: and the other one which deals with testifying against oneself four times is that it shows that counts as four witnesses for the purposes of someone being found guilty of adultery.
Yes. Whilst this may seem weird, the person giving the witness, if indeed four times, must be trustworthy. In this case she was. She wanted to repent, knowing the proceeds that would occur.
Not you - someone presented these to me before. They have been heavily edited to suit a point. In some cases, what's being said contradicts an earlier sentence.
the point of
is that if he says whoever guards his chastity is guaranteed paradise then the opposite is true.
Yes. However, remaining in chastity is a real gem. I don't think anyone, till date has ever achieved that.
Most honour killings occur in muslim majority countries, or are perpetrated by muslims.
Correlation does not mean causation. (This phrase is hardwired into my head - it was the only mark I lost in a Biology A Level paper).
and also:
A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
I guess Islamic clerics are also misinterpreting Islam's message of peace and inclusion? A person might kill his offspring or offsprings offspring for dishonouring the family.
The thing with that, and I remember someone talking about it, is that there had to be certain conditions which were met before honour killing was even an option.
In the cases I've seen, it is murder without trial. Now Islam upholds the sanctity of life, and the Quran declares that killing one innocent human being is akin to killing the entire human race.
Now, the problem of �honour killings� is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their own personal virtue; rather, it is a problem of domination, power and hatred of women who, in these instances, are viewed as nothing more than servants to the family, both physically and symbolically.
Islamic Scholars have continuously condemned honour killings. It is not for us to judge, that is for Allah to decide.
in your refutations of my point you don't seem to find any problem with women being beaten for being unchaste lol.
[quote]
You didn't bring it to my attention ;)
[quote]
my point in mentioning Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 196: and the other one which deals with testifying against oneself four times is that it shows that counts as four witnesses for the purposes of someone being found guilty of adultery.
Yes. Whilst this may seem weird, the person giving the witness, if indeed four times, must be trustworthy. In this case she was. She wanted to repent, knowing the proceeds that would occur.
Vonnie
Mar 18, 03:01 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
more...
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 11:09 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Seriously....The fact that someone want to Bit Torrent over a mobile phones data connection just makes me SMH. It's so much slower then your home internet connection. Maybe they don't have home internet.... OK, give them that. But really, at the end of the day, it's 1s and 0s. Whether it comes from your phone or laptop, you should not get double charged. I will never tether as long as that extra charge is there. ATT or any other carrier will not get another 20/month from me. I think it's crooked. That's my thoughts. Again, I DO NOT tether because of that. I would if it was free, since I'm already paying for DATA whether I use it or not.
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Seriously....The fact that someone want to Bit Torrent over a mobile phones data connection just makes me SMH. It's so much slower then your home internet connection. Maybe they don't have home internet.... OK, give them that. But really, at the end of the day, it's 1s and 0s. Whether it comes from your phone or laptop, you should not get double charged. I will never tether as long as that extra charge is there. ATT or any other carrier will not get another 20/month from me. I think it's crooked. That's my thoughts. Again, I DO NOT tether because of that. I would if it was free, since I'm already paying for DATA whether I use it or not.
more...
EvilEvil
Apr 9, 07:31 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
javajedi
Oct 11, 10:57 AM
I think it was Back2TheMac who posted earlier in this thread "x86 plain sucks". The reason why he belives the x86 ISA and CISC are inferior is because Apple put out a bunch of marketing in the early days of the PowerPC touting RISC as superior new technology. In today's world, RISC processos really aren't RISC, and CISC processors really are CISC.
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
I recommend anyone who still believes in this spin to read this:
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html
It's most informative.
Enjoy
johnnowak
Mar 20, 07:00 AM
Gah... "it's against the law"... whatever.
When stuff is ********, you have to protest. I assume you also think all "illegal" protests, such as the sit-ins and the like during the civil rights movement, were wrong because they were technically illegal?
My mp3 collection is 100% legal (ripped from CDs and downloaded from artists' websites). However, I might consider using this service. Everyone still gets paid, and I get a version of the song that I CAN ****ING PLAY ON MY LINUX PARTITION. *ahem*
When stuff is ********, you have to protest. I assume you also think all "illegal" protests, such as the sit-ins and the like during the civil rights movement, were wrong because they were technically illegal?
My mp3 collection is 100% legal (ripped from CDs and downloaded from artists' websites). However, I might consider using this service. Everyone still gets paid, and I get a version of the song that I CAN ****ING PLAY ON MY LINUX PARTITION. *ahem*
more...
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 06:06 PM
Huh? I agreed with you that there are more car accident deaths. But just as I said Chernobyl is an estimated death toll. My point is many deaths from a nuclear accident aren't known. I personally know someone who died from the effects of Chernobyl who wasn't included in the estimation. I'm sure there are many, many more.
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
more...
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 09:41 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
more...
javajedi
Oct 8, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.