Number 41
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
no matter how you feel, people shouldn't be bullied.
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
You could make the argument that a certain amount of bullying is actually a good thing because it forces kids to develop a thick skin and learn how to deal with aggressive and negative people. Life isn't a nice place -- and it's not like you can rat to a teacher or your parents if your boss is a d-bag who makes your life miserable every day because he is charge.
As a society, we're becoming obsessed with raising kids to never experience negativity in their lives -- from these aggressive "anti-bullying" campaigns to school programs designed to make sure kids never fail a class to sports leagues that give everyone a trophies even if they came in last palce. Youth is supposed to teach you the skills to deal with failure; learning to pick yourself up and move on after a bad game or how to make yourself feel better when people make fun of you. It also gives lessons on "fitting in" -- and contrary to popualr belief, "fitting in" is a pretty important skill if you want to survive. There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, but it's naive to expect everyone else will -- if you're fat, you have to accept that people are going to make fun of you and learn to deal with it (because no amount of PSAs will ever stop everyone for making judgments about fat people), if you're a nerd you just have to own it and move on (or, like most people, bring it up in appropriate social situations and keep it on the back burner other times). Those are skills that kids need to learn if they're going to be happy beyond the walled sanctuary of parents and school.
We can try to shield kids from these things, but all we'll succeed in doing is raising a generation of people who don't understand how to deal with adversity and who go running to their parents or a shrink because someone made fun of their shirt at work or because they don't understand why everyone doesn't accept them for being addicted to japanese cartoon girls.
/rant
c.hilding
Oct 26, 08:55 PM
Noone has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!
digitalaviator
Jun 21, 05:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
bahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha.....
.....not likely
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
bahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha.....
.....not likely
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:51 PM
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
firestarter
Mar 13, 07:27 PM
Solar plants can be put out in the scrub, they don't destroy what can be some of the most beautiful places on Earth like dams do, and have much less land impact.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
NewGenAdam
Mar 11, 04:57 PM
"2239: Japanese nuclear safety officials have said the problems at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant represent "no immediate health hazard" to people living nearby. Some 45,000 people living within a 10km (6-mile) radius of the plant were told to evacuate as radiation levels rose to 1,000 times above normal in one reactor."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
The BBC sticks to the official line; and that's a value in its news. But when the Japanese authorities have been criticised of underplaying the severity of nuclear incidents I think there's also value in finding sources from further afield which might be a little more speculative
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
The BBC sticks to the official line; and that's a value in its news. But when the Japanese authorities have been criticised of underplaying the severity of nuclear incidents I think there's also value in finding sources from further afield which might be a little more speculative
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:55 PM
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 04:42 AM
Yes, that was exactly my point. The people who know how to use the software are (sometimes) assistant editors, although I find the vast majority know how to do a few simple things, but do them well.. The original poster was implying you needed to be a hollywood film editor to judge technical capabilities, and I was saying they were the worst choice for just that reason.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
The people who know the most about editing systems are the Sr. editors who work on heavy, effects based sequences that work in broadcast production environments (I'm not talking about me here). *They* are the ones who push systems to the limits and *they* are the ones who go to NAB. (They're still only 10% of that room)
I think that most of them will find that Apple has, at present abandoned them. That's not to say the industry won't shift, and there won't be enough 3rd party solutions out there, but they are throwing Avid a HUGE bone here.
FCP was making big inroads into broadcast, and they're throwing it away-- for today certainly.
Filmwise, could go either way, depending on the production. If it's got great RED/4k performance, "film" support isn't so important..
But for the indie crowd, they're really screwing them over, if they are abandoning Color. *THAT* is what shocked me. I'm also surprised that effects weren't more advanced. I couldn't see anything on a titling tool, but that's pretty imporant for Broadcast as well.. and *no* existing solution is good for that... They really had (have?) a chance to make that right, and it seems they don't care.
So, when I say "iMovie Pro" that isn't necessarily pejorative. This product is WAY, WAY, WAY more iMovie than FCP. That doesn't mean you can't cut "a real movie" on it. But for Broadcast TV, it's a real step down in a lot of ways-- at the very least not a step up.. The interface is very iMovie. They should have called it iMovie PRO, especially if they're getting rid of the rest of the FCS apps..
Now if it turns out this is just the tip of the iceberg-- then we really could be in for a treat.
Dead on.
There is of course, a lot of questions left unanswered and X, from what I've gathered, is very much is a step down. Where's the viewer? How accurate is this 'skimming' feature? Is it as annoying as the skimming feature in iMovie?
Was trim mode improved? from what I've seen, it looks dumbed down; even more simplified than what is the current version of FCP.
Does multi-camera editing still exist?
Where are the video scopes?
Dual monitor support?
ability to open multiple projects and time lines? And for that matter, what about timeline nesting? I know they've addressed this with this 'compound clips' but can I still take one timeline and drop it into another like I can in FCP 7?
Custom keyboard mapping?
What about the slew of third party plugins and filters I've spent money on? Will they still work?
Can I still capture tape or has Apple decided (like they have with DVDs) that tape is dead?
I think that this can go on and on.
As a long time professional FCP editor, I'm worried. Not because of change-- I like change. What I hate is when they change things and feel as if they need to reinvent how editors and editing have functioned for decades.
WiiDSmoker
May 6, 07:21 AM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
bpaluzzi
Apr 28, 09:29 AM
Yeah, he seems to have forgotton those personal computers known as the Apple ][, the Commodore PET, the Atari 400 and 800, and so on that predated the IBM PC. He's creating a very limited definition that ignores history.
The way I interpreted his comments was exactly the opposite -- he is specifically mentioning the fact that there are "PC" as in IBM PC ("capital PC"), but there are also "personal computers", such as your examples above (his "lower case pc"). I think we're all saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
The way I interpreted his comments was exactly the opposite -- he is specifically mentioning the fact that there are "PC" as in IBM PC ("capital PC"), but there are also "personal computers", such as your examples above (his "lower case pc"). I think we're all saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.
Full of Win
May 6, 08:15 PM
How much of this is from the GSM technology used? Can't CDMA pass through walls and other obsticals better than gsm ones? One would think this would make for less dropped calls.
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 07:18 PM
I was referring to the believers.
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
Hunabku
Apr 20, 06:28 PM
I guess if you want a computer that is cheap and weak, you can get a Windows computer.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
Cheap (maybe) - Weak (no) unless you're taking reliability into account.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' they're is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
This is hitting on something important. A viewpoint that I would consider to be a belief is considered fact on the "inside". If something is considered fact then it is difficult to challenge. It would generally seem that atheists like the idea of scientific method and will be open to having their ideas questioned. In this case, I think agnostic atheist is where most sit. It's that distinction between belief and knowledge that I dislike.
EDIT: Grammar
joepunk
Mar 11, 08:13 PM
0143: Tokyo Electric Power releases more radioactive vapour from a second sticken reactor, AFP reports.
ender land
Apr 23, 04:30 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
The Beatles
Apr 9, 01:07 PM
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)
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.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
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.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
Funkymonk
May 2, 09:08 AM
And it begins...
I'z scared :(
I'z scared :(
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 09:57 PM
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
Hopefully we will find the answer soon enough because there are scientists working on both sides to prove and disprove the higgs boson and once we have it agreed one way or the other, we won't have many scientists preaching that you should have blind faith alone. The higgs boson is not going to be testing our loyalty!
The key thing for me that gives science credibility over religion is the ability to go back and revise your "beliefs" based on more recent findings or new understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment