iBug2
Apr 20, 07:50 PM
People should drop the Ferrari analogy, because it's totally off the mark. Ferrari is better than pretty much anything else, on almost every aspect you can think of, except size.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
An iPhone isn't better than an Android phone on all aspects, it's better in certain ones and worse in others. Overall I prefer Apple's ecosystem when it comes to personal computing, and when it comes to cellphones, I just bought an iPhone (1st gen) because I'm an Apple user anyway, and it seemed pretty amazing in 2007 when Jobs introduced it, and I'm still using my 1st gen.
gb3651
Mar 19, 07:46 PM
You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
torbjoern
Apr 23, 11:27 PM
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Oh yes. A true empiricist I am, indeed. I will never follow any doctrine, faith or political ideology blindly just because a book tells me to do so, not even when it refers to itself (and particularly not then). Hey - I even had a schoolmate who tried to get me into believing that The Protocols of the Elderly of Zion was authentic, "proving" its authenticity by referencing the book itself. Of course I'm an empiricist - it would be madness to found my life on anything else, be it ever so sacred.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
Asking how the universe existed prior to us has been quite meaningful for believers to invalidate the absence of religion. "The universe can't have always existed!" Yes, it can. If it's possible for God to have "always existed", then it's certainly possible for the universe. The universe is less advanced than its creator if there ever were one, so that should be even easier to accept.
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
What is your point? You would still not stand above the law of gravity and neither would your robots, which is why your robots would fall "down" and have to stand up again when you turned the room 90 degrees.
Oh yes. A true empiricist I am, indeed. I will never follow any doctrine, faith or political ideology blindly just because a book tells me to do so, not even when it refers to itself (and particularly not then). Hey - I even had a schoolmate who tried to get me into believing that The Protocols of the Elderly of Zion was authentic, "proving" its authenticity by referencing the book itself. Of course I'm an empiricist - it would be madness to found my life on anything else, be it ever so sacred.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
Asking how the universe existed prior to us has been quite meaningful for believers to invalidate the absence of religion. "The universe can't have always existed!" Yes, it can. If it's possible for God to have "always existed", then it's certainly possible for the universe. The universe is less advanced than its creator if there ever were one, so that should be even easier to accept.
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
What is your point? You would still not stand above the law of gravity and neither would your robots, which is why your robots would fall "down" and have to stand up again when you turned the room 90 degrees.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:27 AM
Problem is, doing a PVR would be extremely expensive. Other than things like Tivo that have monthly fees, PVR's haven't really caught on, and the price is the biggest reason.
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
wlh99
Apr 6, 10:29 AM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
Try cmd-del. (or cmd-backspace. I don't recall what it's labeled on a Mac keyboard, as I prefer a PC 101 key style)
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
Even more confusing with dual monitors.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
At the bottom of the finder window it shows the complete hierarchy. You can click on that to go wherever you need. This is actually the was Vista and Windows 7 now work too, but they put the hierarchy at the top.
easter eggs in a asket
Easter Coloring Pages, Free
Coloring Book: Easter Eggs
easter eggs in a asket
Easter egg basket coloring
easter eggs in a asket
Easter Egg Coloring - The
Printable Easter eggs basket
easter eggs in a asket
Easter egg basket
easter eggs in a asket
Easter Egg Basket Coloring
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
Try cmd-del. (or cmd-backspace. I don't recall what it's labeled on a Mac keyboard, as I prefer a PC 101 key style)
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
Even more confusing with dual monitors.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
At the bottom of the finder window it shows the complete hierarchy. You can click on that to go wherever you need. This is actually the was Vista and Windows 7 now work too, but they put the hierarchy at the top.
CalBoy
Mar 27, 02:57 PM
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
It isn't fallacious when the source is known to be unreliable and non representative of the field which they purport to be a part of.
JFreak
Jul 12, 05:39 AM
Well, the Mini got more expensive, but it's capabilities went WAY up. Optical audio in and out, twice the USB-ports (fixing the two biggest complaints about the old Mini)
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
... built-in wireless, about twice as fast CPU and Core Image compliant video.
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much. The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Comparing price and capabilities, The Mini just got a whole lot cheaper :). The low-end Mini costs the same as the old hi-end Mini, but the new low-end Mini is a lot better than the old hi-end Mini.
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
BettBee
Jun 7, 03:27 PM
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
I would love it, and it would indeed be only fair for ATT to give the micro cell to folks who don't get decent service, but they are not concerned with fairness. Anyone who has had ATT for awhile knows that. All the [expletive deleted]s had to do was allow the service to suck where they could get away with it by stinting on towers and service, then offer the device everyone wants, but let it suck because of the terrible service. So now they come along with another bit of tech for us to pay them for, plus monthly baksheesh to make it work as it should. Brilliant effing strategy on ATT's part.
God I hate ATT.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
I would love it, and it would indeed be only fair for ATT to give the micro cell to folks who don't get decent service, but they are not concerned with fairness. Anyone who has had ATT for awhile knows that. All the [expletive deleted]s had to do was allow the service to suck where they could get away with it by stinting on towers and service, then offer the device everyone wants, but let it suck because of the terrible service. So now they come along with another bit of tech for us to pay them for, plus monthly baksheesh to make it work as it should. Brilliant effing strategy on ATT's part.
God I hate ATT.
sam10685
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
I'm really impressed with the price. Obviously they're not gonna talk about all the features this early, but so far it looks good. Will it record TV? I guess "no."
i have an extremely good feeling it will. i also have an extremely good feeling that they will launch this thing prior to christmas for two reasons... Why would they anounce something this cool in september and not release it by christmas? also, Apple has a history of doing weird stuff like releasing stuff early. "yeah... we're going to start this Intel transition in 6 months." *4 months later, Intel transition starts.*
i have an extremely good feeling it will. i also have an extremely good feeling that they will launch this thing prior to christmas for two reasons... Why would they anounce something this cool in september and not release it by christmas? also, Apple has a history of doing weird stuff like releasing stuff early. "yeah... we're going to start this Intel transition in 6 months." *4 months later, Intel transition starts.*
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:12 PM
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
chasemac
Apr 13, 12:16 AM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
Cheers!!
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 05:34 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.Yep. This is true of many laws.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
tyr2
Sep 20, 08:45 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
I have one of these devices, it's excellent. Especially with the user community at http://toppy.org.uk/.
There's some good info on using one with a Mac here http://www.mtop.co.uk/intro.html
The stock EPG on the unit is a bit crufty but it's deffinetly improving. I'd recommend one to anyone looking for a decent PVR.
Multimedia
Oct 7, 06:52 PM
The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.By Quad you mean each slower Clovertown or a pair of faster Woodies?
Phil A.
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
The one thing that struck me on the report is the amount of marks given to companies who have committed to a timescale. For example, Apple have committed to removing all BFRs but given no timescale and are marked as "bad". Dell have committed to removing all BFRs by 2009 and are marked "Good". Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles), and I think it's a bit misleading to give any company full marks simply because they have given a date that may be missed. I would have preferred to see those marked as Partially Good because clearly a commitment isn't as good as actually delivering on promises.
leekohler
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
First and foremost, I myself am a gay male in his 20's. I know all about discrimination and bullying. I've lived it first-hand, but perhaps nowhere near to the extent that it appears to be common these days, where teenagers are basically pushed to suicide in some cases. It is sad and I can barely begin to imagine their pain.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
With that said, however, I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to arrive to after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle. Let's face it, it's not easy at all for the vast majority of people who live this lifestyle, no matter how picture-perfect they want to brag about how their life is. That's 100% BULL. I have a very open-minded family (who even welcomes my other half like a son of their own) and I live in Orlando (one VERY gay city), but this alternate route is nowhere near easy or rose-colored.
So, I'm very in between. I'm all for ensuring we don't get mistreated or discriminated but I also think all these teens (the target audience of these campaigns) shouldn't be exposed to this type of encouragement either. I'm very disgusted with the GLBT community as of late, with all the bigotry and one-sided attitude. It's funny how we all want to be heard, accepted, and given a chance to express ourselves and fight for what we believe in, but the minute any group, church, or organization stands behind their beliefs, they're immediately labeled as hateful, homophobes with no hearts. Seriously, WTF? Aren't THEY entitled to fight for what THEY believe in as well? I think respect is a two-way street. We sure cry and moan and whine if we don't get any of it, but I see a lot of my own community acting quick to bad-mouth anyone that doesn't support our agenda. Maybe that's why I'm so "eh" about this whole thing.
Many church groups are trying to take away your our rights. We're just trying to be ourselves. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for any group that wants to take the rights of others. We are not trying to take anything form religious groups that don;t like us, but they are trying to take something form us. Big difference.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:39 AM
Yea they're really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
This report will be ripped to shreds if there are inconsistencies and to say Greenpeace are targeting Apple and not Dell for some corrupt reason is slightly pathetic.
And, one of the main gripes was Apple's refusal to give specifics on machine "ingredients", which is a bad move for a company that wants to be socially responsible.
Apple's spokesman is also a bit misguided when he says Apple has led the industry in reducing toxic chemicals from its products. A) It might be true in a couple of instances, but other companies (such as Nokia and Fujitsu Siemens) have actually done a hell of a lot more - especially in their European facilities. B) It's also a lot easier to do this when your product line totals around 5 computers, a few screens and a music player.
Remember Apple's iPod factory report? That has been criticised as being a shadow of the truth and glossing over ugly truths and missing out key details. So what makes you think that Apple is all goodness?
Yes it offers recycling in the US but does it offer it in the UK? No - but it will do come April next year because it will be forced to.
And why can UK users no longer buy iSights or Airport express base stations from Apple? Because new laws have come in restricting the use of hazardous substances in products. Sadly, Apple hasn't pulled its finger out and replaced those products with more environmentally friendly products.
Apple is not perfect, neither is Greenpeace. But look a little deeper and you'll have a better understanding of the story. Companies are taking this report seriously and it's rocking the industry. That's because companies do, or are beginning, to take the actual issue seriously. Apple's fast but weak response is testament to that and it once again demonstrates they have a lot of work to do on this front - despite their claims.
Nuc
This report will be ripped to shreds if there are inconsistencies and to say Greenpeace are targeting Apple and not Dell for some corrupt reason is slightly pathetic.
And, one of the main gripes was Apple's refusal to give specifics on machine "ingredients", which is a bad move for a company that wants to be socially responsible.
Apple's spokesman is also a bit misguided when he says Apple has led the industry in reducing toxic chemicals from its products. A) It might be true in a couple of instances, but other companies (such as Nokia and Fujitsu Siemens) have actually done a hell of a lot more - especially in their European facilities. B) It's also a lot easier to do this when your product line totals around 5 computers, a few screens and a music player.
Remember Apple's iPod factory report? That has been criticised as being a shadow of the truth and glossing over ugly truths and missing out key details. So what makes you think that Apple is all goodness?
Yes it offers recycling in the US but does it offer it in the UK? No - but it will do come April next year because it will be forced to.
And why can UK users no longer buy iSights or Airport express base stations from Apple? Because new laws have come in restricting the use of hazardous substances in products. Sadly, Apple hasn't pulled its finger out and replaced those products with more environmentally friendly products.
Apple is not perfect, neither is Greenpeace. But look a little deeper and you'll have a better understanding of the story. Companies are taking this report seriously and it's rocking the industry. That's because companies do, or are beginning, to take the actual issue seriously. Apple's fast but weak response is testament to that and it once again demonstrates they have a lot of work to do on this front - despite their claims.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Sheesh, where does the OSX 10.2 developer tools CD install gcc to, or under what name? The older dev tools gave me a compiler. Grumble.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:07 PM
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
As I said a few posts back, I have rarely (never) encountered somebody who makes that claim.
At that other forum (that I left because the level of discussion was so poor) there were a number of posts where people linked to examples of what they called "fundamentalist atheists".
Yet, in every case, those atheists went out of their way to state that they don't know ultimately whether a God or Gods exist, only that there is no proof of their existence. If you can find an atheist who claims "There is no such thing as God," I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess.
So my definition of an atheist would not be someone who claims to have disproved God, but one who is still waiting for you to prove yours.
Edit: and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
1tigerlivejob
May 8, 01:12 AM
there pretty reliable I had them for 5 years now
Gelfin
Mar 26, 03:31 PM
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
4Runner2003
Jun 18, 10:28 PM
I'm in Atlanta and think I've only had 1 or 2 dropped calls in 3 years. AT&T and my iPhone and iPhone 3GS have been great. I am expecting the iPhone 4 to be even better,
No comments:
Post a Comment