ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 09:59 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
This sentiment leads to defeat on all fronts. It is also used by people against the particular issue to divide and conquer.
In this case, someone who really wants bullying of another segment of the population specifically addressed should embrace the start of the one movement already begun and network with the people involved to gather their support in embracing the other issue or including it.
Simply arguing one movement on an issue is not worthy of support because it is not all inclusive is not helping anyone.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
This sentiment leads to defeat on all fronts. It is also used by people against the particular issue to divide and conquer.
In this case, someone who really wants bullying of another segment of the population specifically addressed should embrace the start of the one movement already begun and network with the people involved to gather their support in embracing the other issue or including it.
Simply arguing one movement on an issue is not worthy of support because it is not all inclusive is not helping anyone.
MacRumors
Mar 18, 01:23 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/18/021016-atttext.png
target of Osama Bin Laden
osama Bin+laden+shooting+
in Laden Osama bin Laden
Osama Bin Laden Shooting
in laden shooting game,; in
Osama bin Laden middot; Barack Obama
the battle in Bin Laden#39;s
against Osama bin Laden.
in laden shooting game.
of Osama bin Laden at the
Osama Bin Laden Shooting.
Portal about osama bin awad
Seal Qui N sea Osama Bin Laden
killing of Osama bin Laden
Much as Bin Laden hates the
a joke about shooting the
Osama bin Laden#39;s neice
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/18/021016-atttext.png
skunk
Mar 24, 07:19 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."Don't be so disingenuous. The Catholic church has stigmatised gays relentlessly.
~loserman~
Mar 20, 05:17 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
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.
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.
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.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
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.
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.
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.
jefhatfield
Oct 10, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:57 AM
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't see much baiting in his post.
I don't see much baiting in his post.
EricNau
Sep 20, 07:30 PM
Steve Jobs claimed the iTV "completed the picture," but it does nothing of the sort (based on already revealed features). In reality there is still a hole large enough to fly a 747 through.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
We need a way to record our own TV shows from our cable subscription. If Apple expects us to drop our cable/dish and buy everything from the iTS, they are sadly mistaken...
In fact, the average american could not afford to cancel their cable subscription and buy their shows from the iTS. Consider this: the average cable bill is approximately $55 in the US for unlimited TV. This means for the same price you could buy about 25 episodes every month from the iTS. Let's say you watch The Daily Show, that is all you could watch.
The average bill for a family of four would well exceed $150 a month if everything was bought from iTunes.
Apple needs a wake up call.
Eraserhead
Mar 26, 03:05 AM
Love conquers all until it hits a rough patch
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
If you really love someone, surely you don't want to be with anyone else? If so, then it would be pretty moronic not to ultimately work out your issues with the other person.
DemSpursBro
Apr 9, 01:23 AM
You can't cut and paste, only copy and paste.
A lot of games won't work on mac.
The magic mouse is absolutely horrible, so stay away.
They heat quite quickly.
A lot of games won't work on mac.
The magic mouse is absolutely horrible, so stay away.
They heat quite quickly.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:19 PM
A cold comfort considering it is now already thought to be close to a level 6 incident on the INES scale. :(
Yes, you're right, it's still unstable and still has the potential to become a real disaster. I was more working from the angle that this is the result of a truly devastating natural disaster: a real freak of nature. Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Yes, you're right, it's still unstable and still has the potential to become a real disaster. I was more working from the angle that this is the result of a truly devastating natural disaster: a real freak of nature. Calling the safety of nuclear energy in general into question on the back of it is silly.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
I just think Apple is making a mistake by not making some low end machines.
...They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
...As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
You're completely wrong, Piggie. Anyone who uses Mac hardware knows that. A Macbook Pro is a completely different animal than a piece of crap made by Dell that sells for half the price. Apple doesn't make junk, and never will. I'm glad. I don't care that Joe Cheapo wants the lowest priced garbage he can find, and doesn't care that its hard drive will fail in a year, that its motherboard will fry, it's underpowered, or that his experience will suck and he won't know the difference. Those of us who buy Macs and choose to spend more for a better made machine appreciate the difference. You get what you pay for - remember that.
And people ARE buying them. In droves.
...They may walk past the small Apple table, see the near �1000 price tag, and think, yeah, right, like we're going to get one of those. I could get two good spec'd windows Laptops for that price.
...As the only REAL difference between a PC and a Mac these days is the OS it's running, there is no reason Apple could not make a laptop directly at the price point of a medium to low end Windows laptop and then, people may buy them, and perhaps get used to OS X and in years to come go for an iMac.
You're completely wrong, Piggie. Anyone who uses Mac hardware knows that. A Macbook Pro is a completely different animal than a piece of crap made by Dell that sells for half the price. Apple doesn't make junk, and never will. I'm glad. I don't care that Joe Cheapo wants the lowest priced garbage he can find, and doesn't care that its hard drive will fail in a year, that its motherboard will fry, it's underpowered, or that his experience will suck and he won't know the difference. Those of us who buy Macs and choose to spend more for a better made machine appreciate the difference. You get what you pay for - remember that.
And people ARE buying them. In droves.
4look4rd
Apr 9, 01:11 PM
I still cannot believe that there aren't decent turn base strategy games on the iphone. Games like tactics ogre, final fantasy tactics, front mission, and the like would be excellent in a mobile device. I remember square announced FFT for the iphone a while back but it still was not released.
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
I would love if they ported PS1 and N64 classics to the iphone/ipad. Can you imagine playing FF7-9, Smash Brothers, Parasite Eve, platformers like Megaman, and even Resident Evil 1-3 (the RE4 port was dreadful, but I can see it being done properly).
jefhatfield
Oct 10, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
i agree with your balanced comment
it has to be better than, "macs rule all the time or pcs rule all the time"
things are just not that black and white:p
MACRUS
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
I think you missed the color correction on ingest, non-destructive color correction, and one-click color correction feature announcements. Color is not dead, it is just no longer a separate app. The entire app is re-written with color matching integrate to the app, and color correction as well, it sounds like.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
HAHAHA One-click CC. you are funny or... well you know what.
Cromulent
Mar 26, 07:45 PM
What does being gay have to do with being a priest?
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
paulvee
Nov 3, 07:59 AM
Most pros I know don't measurebate about specs on forums all day, every day - yes, once in a while they do, but most of the time they're...doing work...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 02:04 PM
You agree with a mangled, meaningless phrase of dog Latin? Mirabile dictu.
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.
Ciaociao's Latin expression wasn't a phrase. It was a complete sentence that meant, "This is a sign of contradiction, brother." In the Bible "a sign of contradiction" means "someone to oppose" or "something to oppose." Our Lord was a sign of contradiction because his enemies opposed him.
kdarling
Apr 21, 09:01 AM
And a nice Skype app that was able to send your private data out.
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Play Ultimate
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
WHAT!?!??!?
They just released a new 24" iMac last week and updated the others.
:eek:
WHAT!?!??!?
They just released a new 24" iMac last week and updated the others.
:eek:
clintob
Oct 25, 10:26 PM
This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:55 PM
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:27 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?