Trash Can
Jun 19, 02:10 PM
I got the iPhone 3G two years ago after being with Verizon for seven. Love the phone - hate the network! I travel extensively. Some places my 3G is reliable, others not so much.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
The iPhone cannot be beat in terms of engineering, user interface, and elegance. iPhone 4 appears to raise the bar even further. However, a phone is only as good as the network that it's on. As much as I love the thing, many times it functions more like an iPod Touch than a phone. With the introduction of the iPad 3G and influx of new iPhone 4 users, I believe AT&T's network issues will get worse before it gets better.
I've decided to leave AT&T, return to Verizon, and get a Droid. Is a Droid my device of choice? No, but at least I'll have reliability, something that I haven't had for the last two years. I've experienced more dropped calls with AT&T in one week than I have with Verizon over several years.
If and when Verizon ever gets the iPhone, I'll be in line with everyone else on launch day. Until then, I'm sure there will be days when I'm somewhat envious of those who purchased iPhone 4 (and possibly subsequent models), but at least I'll know I'll be able to make and receive calls reliably and without interruption.
ChrisA
Sep 26, 12:08 PM
What incentive does anyone ever have to buy if they keep announcing new chips?
What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly
On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment
But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
What incentive? Money. If you need to get some work out to a client you need to have some kind of computer. For example we bought a new Dual Xeon system with 4GB RAM and a set of SCSI disks because the old box was "way slow" now I can do many more Build/Test/Debug cycles every day. Yes there are now even faster boxes but I've gotten much more work done that had we waited would not have gotten done. The $4500 computer paid for it self rather quickly
On the other hand if a computer is to be used as a game console and media player you can never justify the price. It's just a toy and you buy it with "disposable" income with no hope of a return on the investment
But most of these Mac Pros are sold to people who at least hope to make more money with the machine than they spent for it. So for most users waiting is simply to expensive.
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space?
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
The post I was replying to said that there were 100x the cars today, which is 100% false. That the population has nearly doubled since then is true.
I actually can't find any data from 1966, but the numbers from 1968 are very similar.
Not sure about nuking the Middle East, though.... :)
ready2switch
Sep 20, 10:15 AM
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
awmazz
Mar 15, 08:52 AM
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Yes. All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits
Yes. Radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits.
Move along.
Move along.
---------
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant.Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
As was quoted in my quote of the quoted article you quoted:
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
You want to be pedantic about 'front door' and 'outside the plant'?
I think we all already know without requiring puma's three degrees in atom science that the further away from it you are the less radioactivity there is. Hence the word 'evacuate'.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Yes. All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits
Yes. Radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits.
Move along.
Move along.
---------
It fails to mention that the statistic noted, "8,217 microsieverts an hour" was measured at the front door of the damaged power plant.Link (http://www.naeil.com/news/eboard_view.asp?location=1&mn_id=3149) As was said in the article I quoted above, radiation levels decrease drastically with distance.
As was quoted in my quote of the quoted article you quoted:
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
You want to be pedantic about 'front door' and 'outside the plant'?
I think we all already know without requiring puma's three degrees in atom science that the further away from it you are the less radioactivity there is. Hence the word 'evacuate'.
EricNau
Apr 25, 12:02 AM
The ACT test is like the SAT but for the middle of America. I got 36* and literally only studied the day before.
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
*weight my arguments posted on the Internet accordingly.
Long time no see. It's nice to have you back. :)
Eraserhead
Mar 26, 03:05 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
skunk
Mar 14, 05:41 PM
that could be one way to go, another would be having sun/wind farms in the middle of the ocean, to be moved out of the way when weather comes along.Haven't we screwed with the oceans long enough?
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distanceDC power lines. Edison would approve.
one problem with this off-site approaches is that you still have to transfer the energy long distanceDC power lines. Edison would approve.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 03:07 PM
I'd love to hear of every day miracles, but my guess is we may disagree when it comes to the interpretation of such happenings. To reinforce, I do sense something I would describe as "spiritual", but I don't have enough info to address those feelings or assign responsibility for their existence. What is important for perspective is that I am not distressed to wait for the answer. :)
I'll answer the rest of Huntn's post when I can do that. But I have work to do first.
Miraculous cure in Lourdes, France?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMF059m29Y&feature=related
Eucharistie miracles?
In the Vatican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
I'll answer the rest of Huntn's post when I can do that. But I have work to do first.
Miraculous cure in Lourdes, France?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMF059m29Y&feature=related
Eucharistie miracles?
In the Vatican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:52 PM
It may be his favourite question, but very valid.
From what I have seen you'll come up with a list of (self?)published books� Not quite the same thing as "published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing".
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
From what I have seen you'll come up with a list of (self?)published books� Not quite the same thing as "published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing".
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:42 AM
Do either IBM or Motorola have a quad-core chip on the horizon?
How many cores in a Cell? Nine, depending on how you count...
How many cores in a Cell? Nine, depending on how you count...
ezekielrage_99
Sep 26, 12:34 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
Sounds like both Intel and AMD are going by the philosophy more cores more speed.
It looks like the programmers will be in for a fun old time.
TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 06:52 AM
Xeon! Conroe (Core 2 Duo)is going in the iMac
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
No, I believe Apple will pop the Core 2 Duo Merom into the iMac. It's supposedly a drop-in replacement for the current Core Duo processor the iMac currently uses.
Additionally, the Edu-iMac won't be upgraded for a while yet, so that when the new Merom iMac _is_ released (WWDC), there will be a bigger difference between the Edu-iMac and the full iMac.
I'm _sure_ that Apple has a surpise for us wrt the Conroe /Conroe XE CPU.... a nice smallish desktop Mac (we can hope, can't we?) :cool:
faroZ06
Apr 20, 06:15 PM
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:48 AM
1. Android phones beat the iPhone to the punch. FACT.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
2. Android ALSO helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. FACT.
3. Android manufacturers are making more money than ever. [Samsung, HTC are a proof] FACT.
4. Android has been a blatant rip off of the iPhone from day 1 OR day -1. FACT.
5. Android provides a very fragmented experience compared to the integrated experience on iOS. FACT.
6. Android is devoid of any viable OR any ecosystem. FACT.
7. Apple makes more profit through the iPhone than all of the competitors combined. FACT.
8. iOS with iTunes, Mac OS X, AppleTV and cloud services provides the best ecosystem available. Arguable. BUT FACT.
9. Apple DOES care about the marketshare; Apple DOES care about the money; APPLE does care about the user experience. FACT.
10. Android fanboys are comparitively bitter and are very rude to the fellow commentors and especially Apple and Steve Jobs. FACT.
That's all I could come up with.
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
JoEw
Jan 20, 11:22 PM
i really divided on the matter i think android has a possibility of surpassing iphone market share only because android platform is on more then just 1 smart phone. However iphone is simplistic and has the app store which has way more developer backing then android does at the moment. Mainly because there is money to made from the app store where android simply does not have enough popularity for developers to make money from its store. I think the biggest thing hurting the iphone is the fact that it is locked on ATT. I think it needs to be on all major US cell networks or at least on verizon.
rjfiske
Sep 20, 03:25 PM
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
itickings
Apr 15, 07:09 AM
I still miss the ability to easily control the computer with only a keyboard without reaching for the mouse/trackpad all the time.
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 08:45 AM
Will you mind if those cheap laptop sales are included in the tablet sales figures?
Laptops are not tablets. However, tablets are PCs.
Laptops are not tablets. However, tablets are PCs.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 04:46 AM
The delusion is this thread is hilarious. I'm seeing little casual gamers saying
LOL
You're such a big power gamer yourself...
LOL
You're such a big power gamer yourself...
citizenzen
Mar 28, 09:56 AM
If I asked "Who are you?" when we happened to see each other, would you reply that you were gay? I doubt it.
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."
So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make there.
No comments:
Post a Comment