Huntn
Apr 23, 10:17 PM
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
When I think of 'proof' I think of something that meets a logical standard for a large group of people. Individual proof that no one else sees is questionable, more suited to be calling faith. By your reasoning a Theist and an Atheist could both claim proof based on what they imagine, but they would each claim the other is wrong. In this matter there no such thing as proof.
On a separate note, even if a giant face appeared in the sky and said "I am God!" how would we prove this is a deity or an advanced alien species? I suppose this could be an argument for the individuality of faith, but still it's not what any logical person would call real proof. If it is something you sense, there is no guarantee your senses are accurate. And then what about the person who sees pink dragons? Reality might really be illusive. ;)
drsmithy
Sep 26, 09:17 PM
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
On modern platforms, the OS will "cache" (in reality it's a bit more complicated, but the effect is the same) the executable(s) and library(/ies) necessary for an application to execute at runtime and keep them in RAM unless the system is memory starved. As such, the only thing a RAM drive should speed up on a modern system is initial program load times.
RAM drives are (outside of corner cases like, say, for something like DB rollback logs) a crutch for systems with either insufficient real RAM (in which you should get more and let every aspect of the system benefit) or broken VM systems (in which case you should upgrade your OS and let every application benefit). Many of the methods you might have used to make your Mac II running System 7 faster don't really apply to modern OSes - RAM drives are one of them.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
On modern platforms, the OS will "cache" (in reality it's a bit more complicated, but the effect is the same) the executable(s) and library(/ies) necessary for an application to execute at runtime and keep them in RAM unless the system is memory starved. As such, the only thing a RAM drive should speed up on a modern system is initial program load times.
RAM drives are (outside of corner cases like, say, for something like DB rollback logs) a crutch for systems with either insufficient real RAM (in which you should get more and let every aspect of the system benefit) or broken VM systems (in which case you should upgrade your OS and let every application benefit). Many of the methods you might have used to make your Mac II running System 7 faster don't really apply to modern OSes - RAM drives are one of them.
crees!
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.
Moyank24
Mar 11, 01:41 AM
Scary. The videos they are showing are just incredible. Hopefully the worst of it is over and the loss of life is minimal.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
My thoughts and prayers are with everyone over there.
thejoshu
Mar 21, 01:32 AM
They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.
macfan1977
Mar 18, 08:52 PM
So sorry if I missed any thread on DVD Jon's involvement in this.
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
I have to admit that I am cynical he was the brains behind DeCSS. I always figured he played the patsy for some adult he knew. Like maybe the true owner of that Timex/Sinclair Spectrum thingy PC you see on his home page. I am however grateful for the program. I just think it was a matter of time before *someone* leaked or discovered the algorithm.
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
If I'm wrong and he's truely genius (and can repeat it), then maybe he ought to create something of his own with all that talent. If he knows so much about DRM and coding, there should be a whole lot more money in making the next generation DRM. Sometimes the best thieves make the best security experts. He'd still get the fame, and wouldn't have to worry about legal issues.
The line that "information wants to be free" won't buy a Porsche!
Therbo
May 2, 09:25 AM
I went on a site that downloaded this a few days ago.
It opened up the installer, I simply closed the window. Its only a threat to those who proceed with the installed. Pressing the Red circle is not so hard.
You also need to remember, this software can only infect your user, not the system unless you give it your sudo password. If you can't remove it, just simply make a new user, move over the files you need and switch to that user. It will be clean of this "malware"
Unix Security FTW
It opened up the installer, I simply closed the window. Its only a threat to those who proceed with the installed. Pressing the Red circle is not so hard.
You also need to remember, this software can only infect your user, not the system unless you give it your sudo password. If you can't remove it, just simply make a new user, move over the files you need and switch to that user. It will be clean of this "malware"
Unix Security FTW
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:01 PM
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
sorry for trying to provide easy info...
sorry for trying to provide easy info...
ChazUK
Feb 24, 12:07 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
By "looks great" I take it you are referring to games?
leonardo dicaprio 2011.
Kate Winslet, Leonardo
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
By "looks great" I take it you are referring to games?
Mattie Num Nums
May 2, 09:26 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
You're awfully sensitive about this issue, chief.
totoum
Apr 13, 02:32 AM
Oh but it will sync the sound for you
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
Tags: leonardo dicaprio kate
March 9, 2011
and+leonardo+dicaprio+2011
Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate
Kate Winslet and Leonardo
Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate
kate winslet Leo+dicaprio+
Kate Winslet with Leonardo
Right,because wasting time syncing audio manually when you could be doing actual editing is what makes someone a pro.
Chaszmyr
Jul 14, 02:16 PM
Can anyone tell me the purpose of dual drive slots nowadays? I can see the use for them (and had computers with) when they were limited to one function, i.e. DVD-ROM for one and a CD-RW for the other but now that everything can happen in one drive with speed not being an issue, is it really nececcary to have two?
There used to be some software to directly copy from CD to CDR, and this was very common in the days before people had MP3 players... but I can't imagine many people doing this anymore, and I don't know of any software to do this with DVDs.
It would be nice if you play a game that requires a CD in and won't permit you to use a disc image on the hard drive.
There used to be some software to directly copy from CD to CDR, and this was very common in the days before people had MP3 players... but I can't imagine many people doing this anymore, and I don't know of any software to do this with DVDs.
It would be nice if you play a game that requires a CD in and won't permit you to use a disc image on the hard drive.
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:51 AM
The iPad is a companion device and not a true PC. I know people here will disagree with me since the numbers help Apple so much, but they just shouldn't be included with these numbers.
GGJstudios
May 2, 11:36 AM
4. Run a Spotlight search for "MACDefender" to check for any associated files that might still be lingering
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
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.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
That's a sure way *not* to find any related files.
The only effective method for complete app removal is manual deletion:
Best way to FULLY DELETE a program (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11171082&postcount=16)
One thing Macs need anti-virus is to scan mails for Windows viruses, so that those doesn't to you PC. That is all.
That doesn't protect Windows PCs from malware from other sources, which is a far greater threat than receiving files from a Mac. Each Windows user should be running their own anti-virus, to protect them from malware from all sources.
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer.
No, only a virus can do that. A trojan requires user involvement to spread.
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
This isn't a virus.
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem.
I agree. While no Mac OS X viruses exist at this time, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And malware has always been a threat. What's important is to understand the kinds of threats and the most effective methods for protection.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Just when you do, someone will release a new virus into the wild. While they may not be as prevalent as they once were, they're by no means extinct.
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
The best defense a Mac user has against current malware threats is education and common sense. Understanding the basic differences between a virus, trojan, worm, and other types of malware will help a user defend against them. Doing simple things like unchecking the "Open "safe" files after downloading" option is quite effective.
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
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.
Actually, it helps a user to have some understanding about malware. Part of the problem is a novice user is likely to engage in dangerous activities, such as installing pirated software, unless they know what a trojan is and how it infects a system. Also, understanding what a virus is, how it spreads, and the fact that none exist for Mac OS X will prevent them from instantly assuming that everything unexpected that happens on their Mac is the result of a virus. Also, understanding that antivirus apps can't detect a virus that doesn't yet exist will prevent them from installing AV and having a false sense of security, thinking they're immune to threats. Educating a user goes a very long way in protecting them, by teaching them to practice safe computing habits.
Mac Virus/Malware Info (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9400648&postcount=4)
G4er?
Apr 29, 08:23 AM
I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on an Apple computer that now are sitting in the business world using Windows.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Apple.
My wife is a teacher. She personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Windows machines. After that my wife switched to Windows. I've been using Macs for 18 years. But I'm getting so sick of waiting for Apple to make a mid sized mid range Mac without a built in screen I'm close to switching to Windows too.
And there are people running Windows on Macs in order to use Autocad that has all the features. Some of the features are not on the new Mac version of Autocad.
There are thousands maybe millions of people out there that had there first computer experience on an Apple computer that now are sitting in the business world using Windows.
Who are they?
All those kids from all those schools that used to use Apple.
My wife is a teacher. She personally taught lots of them. Schools are now using Windows machines. After that my wife switched to Windows. I've been using Macs for 18 years. But I'm getting so sick of waiting for Apple to make a mid sized mid range Mac without a built in screen I'm close to switching to Windows too.
And there are people running Windows on Macs in order to use Autocad that has all the features. Some of the features are not on the new Mac version of Autocad.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:25 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?
latergator116
Mar 20, 06:15 PM
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
Ugg
Apr 15, 12:09 PM
Of course nobody cares about all the straight kids out there that are bullied or at least the media doesn't. Even if they're being called gay because they're not as masculine as society expects but if they're not actually gay then forget it. Those people might as well just kill themselves. At least that's what I've seen from experience.
Can you provide some statistics to back up your claim?
Can you provide some statistics to back up your claim?
Mord
Jul 12, 05:00 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
There are quite a lot of people in this thread who sound like AT&T employees trying to add to the scare tactics.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
moderately
Apr 28, 10:12 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Uhm, I still use an iPod. It carries all my music, usable contacts and calendar now and some games. And a touch interface. You are saying that my iPod Touch is not an Ipod. Guess we need to call it iTouch after all.
I think it is stretching it to call the iPod a fad. One of the defining aspects of a fad is its temporary nature. 8-10 years temporary? Everything is temporary.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:26 PM
Well supported points there :rolleyes:.
There are a-lot of atheists on these boards because there are quite a few far left atheists on these boards. Leftists are more likely to be atheists.
I like to believe it's because they make their decisions based on logic and reason.
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
There are a-lot of atheists on these boards because there are quite a few far left atheists on these boards. Leftists are more likely to be atheists.
I like to believe it's because they make their decisions based on logic and reason.
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
PghLondon
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Wow. Just... wow.
Wow. Just... wow.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น