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.
xlambodog
Mar 18, 02:40 PM
To start off, I do not want to get intimate with the moral aspect of this. Everyone has their opinion.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
Miranda Lambert Kerosene Album
Lambert. cover art
miranda lambert album artwork.
miranda lambert album art.
miranda lambert album art.
miranda lambert album art.
miranda lambert album artwork.
Miranda+lambert+album+art
miranda lambert album artwork.
miranda lambert album art.
miranda lambert album art.
miranda lambert album artwork.
miranda lambert album cover.
miranda lambert album art.
Miranda Lambert - Revolution
miranda lambert album
miranda lambert cma dress.
On my end, I have a jail-broken iPhone 3GS on 4.2.1, with MyWi installed, and I have a grand-fathered unlimited plan.
I want to tether for that 1 time where I really need internet on my laptop when I am out and about, and maybe when I am out camping and I have my laptop.
Most of us have MyWi so we can do this, right? It's more of a backup system. I've used it only twice, including the time I tested it. I don't picture people using tethering everyday, or even for prolonged periods of time. Why doesn't AT&T just provide users the ability to tether 5-10 times a month? Then if you need more "access" you can pay for it?
When I say "access", imagine a "movie ticket" that grants you access to the movie. If you want to see a different "movie" at a different time, you need another "movie ticket."
Right now, most of us want access to the theater, and hope to see another movie without another ticket
Multimedia
Oct 21, 10:03 AM
lmao and just to add, DAMN that is alot of coresNot if you use applications that are Core Hogs. Compressing video with Toast uses up to 4 cores per instance. Compressing video with Handbrake uses up to 3 cores per instance. So, no, it's not a lot of cores at all and I will be buying a 16 core then a 32 core Mac Pro the day they ship as well. :eek:
charlituna
Apr 28, 09:11 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Indeed. Although I would argue that the ipad doesn't belong in this group but rather with other mobile devices like smart phones. Where it probably puts Apple at the top or at least second place.
Indeed. Although I would argue that the ipad doesn't belong in this group but rather with other mobile devices like smart phones. Where it probably puts Apple at the top or at least second place.
gopher
Oct 7, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 11:36 AM
NIMBY. I'm okay with nuclear power as long as it's far far away from where I live. Of course, it's not like my town is prone to natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_earthquake) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hugo) or anything.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:19 PM
colorful chart
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
That chart isn't going to fool anyone with a brain. All it shows is what is currently implemented. It says nothing about the potential contributions of all sources, how much they cost per watt, how much pollution they produce or whether or not they are renewable. It's a colorful red herring and you know it.
For one thing, there's no need for you to try to be a shill for the nuclear, oil, gas and coal industry - they already have well-financed lobbying operations and huge political influence. They'll get on fine without your "help". For another, it goes without saying that fossil fuels and nuclear are going to be used until they are gone. The energy demands are too great to do othwerise.
But they are called "non-renewable" energy sources for a reason, and they all pose major pollution problems that we are still struggling with. There is absolutely no good reason not to aggressively pursue the development and adoption of renewable energy sources as soon as is practical. Some day they will produce the bulk of the world's energy out of necessity if nothing else.
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
So in other words, without non-renewable energy, human civilization falls? That's a ridiculous stance.
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:20 AM
Everything is hate to people like you. It makes it impossible to have any kind of conversation.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
Difference of opinion != Hate
Putting homosexuality down to the choice of a "hip counterculture" is hateful, because it completely trivializes the issue.
Real people's lives are being snuffed out because of who they are; these are kids that will never get a chance to do all of the things that make this life so great.
Your words are hateful because they further marginalize. I am a heterosexual man, and I did not choose to be one. My best friend is a homosexual man, and he did not choose to be one. Yet he had to endure an unending fear of violence for who he was, and I did not.
I don't even care if you don't like homosexual people; you're free to do that. But don't trivialize the situation; these people are dying for who they are, and that should shock and disturb every last one of us.
beg_ne
May 2, 10:44 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:41 PM
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
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.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
I was talking about the invention of hydro?
Regarding nuclear subsidization, I'm quite aware of this fact. We subsidize ethanol, we subsidize oil, we subsidize nuclear, we subsidize wind, we subsidize solar. Seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? It's like playing roulette and putting a chip on every single number.
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.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of. It might be oil, it might not be. In the immediate term, I'm sure it would be. You're right, I would not advocate any sort of government mandate forcing American oil to be marketed outside of the global markets, what I would be 100% ok with though would be a consortium of American drillers deciding that they wanted to keep their oil separate and market it to the American people as such so that people could make a decision. Additional American oil on the world market would increase supply in the supply/demand ratio which would result in the price being decreased to bring the balance back to the market place.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:11 PM
Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
appleguy123
Apr 23, 04:01 PM
Well now, I don't think being an atheist actually entails anything. I certainly don't do anything specific related to it, but I know what you mean :).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
I actually like being questioned. More on my scientific ideas, but religious ones too. For me, it is the best way to learn.
Others around me aren't this way. We'll be having what I think is an intellectual discussion, and the next moment my friend's shouting at me. It's weird to think about holding any ideal sacred(a
Though it wouldn't have been when I was a fundamentalist :eek:).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
I actually like being questioned. More on my scientific ideas, but religious ones too. For me, it is the best way to learn.
Others around me aren't this way. We'll be having what I think is an intellectual discussion, and the next moment my friend's shouting at me. It's weird to think about holding any ideal sacred(a
Though it wouldn't have been when I was a fundamentalist :eek:).
Peterkro
Mar 12, 05:11 AM
I agree it's a bit early to be speculating.However as shown by investigations into Chernobyl and Seven Mile Island in these situations small errors in design and human mistakes can all add up to unknown territory.It looks like a hydrogen explosion,super heated water = hydrogen and oxygen + ignitor = big bang.The presence of Caesium indicates some core damage.I hope those in Japan get through this with the least amount of pain possible.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 08:48 PM
You can scan it but if you are doing manual removal its because the scanners aren't finding it (but its still there). In these cases you have to hunt the file down manually, most security sites will post removal instructions but Windows OS allows for files to completely hide themselves even when booting into safe mode and having all files and folders as well as system files showing. A lot of files even though they are there can't be seen by command prompt either.
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
However, buy using a non windows OS you can always see these files so I'll plug the drive they are on into a mac or linux machine and locate the files on there.
Not all viruses hide files like that obviously but some do so if you ever do a manual removal and the file you are looking for isn't there (but you know for sure the machine is infected) then most likely you just have to pop out the drive and plug it into another OS.
I really wish MS would fix this and not let files be hidden, it would make my job MUCH easier.
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
balamw
Apr 11, 10:57 AM
Would it be possible/legal to create a Virtual machine on my mac mini running OSX Lion (when it's released) if I don't want to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion on my mini (when I get it/lion is out)?
Unlikely, but you can install Lion on an external drive and boot from that when you want to.
B
Unlikely, but you can install Lion on an external drive and boot from that when you want to.
B
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
generik
Sep 26, 01:39 AM
Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)
As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)
emotion
Sep 20, 10:30 AM
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.
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
Stella
Aug 29, 10:54 PM
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
Sure, go and destroy this planet - you know, the thing that sustains life for you.
Hell, some people take things too far.... the entity that supports life... yea.....
Sure, go and destroy this planet - you know, the thing that sustains life for you.
Hell, some people take things too far.... the entity that supports life... yea.....
vincenz
Apr 15, 11:05 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Alienate? How so?
I like the name of the project. It's very optimistic.
Stella
Aug 29, 10:58 PM
You sound like George Bush...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.
Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.
Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.
The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.
Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...
... :rolleyes: ...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Period.
Exactly, George Bush is a complete and utter moran. He thinks that ( american ) people shouldn't change their life styles.
Well, a few more Caterinas ( spelling ) will change their views.
The seas are heating up which means more hurricanes.... and I'm a firm believer that humans are in part ( not totally ) responsible for global warming ( that may actually result in Global Cooling ) - you've only got to look at weather statistics since the first industrial revolution. Patterns of weather, seasons have significantly changed since then.
Why is it that the majority of scientists have come forward with positive data proving global warming ( human influenced ), and then GW Bush with his small band of 'advisors' come along and reject their findings...
... :rolleyes: ...
OdduWon
Nov 3, 11:23 AM
Someone give multimedia 8 cores please. so he will have more time to bring the know. :D
you rock ;)
you rock ;)
henhowc
May 6, 10:20 AM
I don't really get my calls dropped when I'm connected with someone. But I do get a lot of calls where it never rings or registers as a missed call and it just goes straight to voice mail. That's a bit frustrating. I'm in the West Los Angeles area and work in a densely populated college campus so I'm assuming that's probably contributing to the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment