hcho3
Apr 20, 05:13 PM
LTE is still not available on many areas in the US. Only Verizon has it. The first chipsets will have bugs and battery life issues. It's clear that apple doesn't want to try out first generation LTE chipsets.
One analyst asked about iPhone 5 release date and Tim was like, "Dude, we don't comment on future products because all of those copycats are going to copy. In fact, they are probably listening to this conference right now. So, we are not going to say anything."
One analyst asked about iPhone 5 release date and Tim was like, "Dude, we don't comment on future products because all of those copycats are going to copy. In fact, they are probably listening to this conference right now. So, we are not going to say anything."
Sydde
Apr 26, 11:53 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical. But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81 (see "biblical apocrypha (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha)"). Then there are fascinating tales such as the Gospel According to Judas Iscariot (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas) and the Gospel of Barnabas (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas), which relate a rather different account of the last days of Jesus.
Finally, one cannot ignore the Nag Hammadi texts (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) nor the books summarily left out (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) of the new testament.
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:08 PM
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Didn't you read this?
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Didn't you read this?
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Dagless
Apr 9, 08:17 AM
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
New Mario DS has sold 25 million copies. It's the 9th best selling game of all time. So clearly a lot of people are buying Mario for �25 when Angry Birds is 59p.
Pokemon Black and White is new (released in Japan late last year, here just last month), �25-30 and has sold 10 million copies. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
WiiFit Plus has been out a couple of years (like Angry Birds), and costs between �20-70 and has sold 18.72 million copies/units. All whilst Angry Birds has been 59p.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
I think the batteries of your sarcasm detector are low. You completely missed my point: the iPod is the granddaddy of today's iOS devices even though so many dismissed it when it was first released.
There were hordes of people in 2001 saying the iPod was a fad, that other MP3 players had more features, etc. Even years later people were dissing the iPod because it didn't have a radio and all of the iPod's supposed competitors did.
kdarling
Oct 16, 07:42 AM
Apple's iPhone works because it has lineage, in terms of history, hardware and software development, and integrity, as well as reliability, developer support and marketing advantage. iMac begat PowerBook Ti, begat iPod, begat iPhone. NeXT begat Darwin, begat Mac OS X, begat iPhone OS. None of this is an accident. Apple designed this process. And they began in 1997 - if not earlier.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Android only began as a techie wet dream in
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
I'm sure there may well come a day when there are 125,000 developers working on Android applications. There may even be 85,000 applications available for the Android platform too - from some dark corners of the net.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Squire
Sep 20, 08:56 AM
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them).
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Dr Who to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
It's too bad I couldn't have included a rising intonation arrow in my question ending in "...aren't you?" because I wasn't sure. Now I know and thanks for clearing that up. Of course, it's a moot point if Apple continues to offer TV shows to a US-only audience.
-Squire
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:21 AM
Please elaborate LTD.
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
What do you mean by entire market? :confused:
Lets see the spin artist spin this faster than the Tazmanian Devil. (grabs popcorn)
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 05:46 PM
Terminology is different migrating from Windows to Mac. They pretty much have the same features, but they are worded differently. So, there is a learning curve, but it is not troublesome. I am still learning OS X and so far it has been a breeze. I think your attitude while making the switch is important. Be openminded and remember why you chose to buy a Mac: you want to learn a new operating system. Among other reasons. :)
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
If I think of more discrepancies, I will follow up with another post. Switchers Rule! :D
Also, iWork and Office are two different animals, but they do the same thing: create documents and slide shows etc.. I have and use both, but honestly, I prefer Office, as it has extra features when writing research papers. One of my current tasks at hand. Remember, I am still new and I plan to use one-to-one in order to learn all of the features of iWork.
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
If I think of more discrepancies, I will follow up with another post. Switchers Rule! :D
Also, iWork and Office are two different animals, but they do the same thing: create documents and slide shows etc.. I have and use both, but honestly, I prefer Office, as it has extra features when writing research papers. One of my current tasks at hand. Remember, I am still new and I plan to use one-to-one in order to learn all of the features of iWork.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:43 PM
The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
Interesting cyclical logic....heat makes the sun shine stronger....hmmmm. I think what you're trying to say is that methods for creating electricity put pollutants in the atmosphere, which is true.
So....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Interesting cyclical logic....heat makes the sun shine stronger....hmmmm. I think what you're trying to say is that methods for creating electricity put pollutants in the atmosphere, which is true.
So....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
woodbine
Apr 13, 03:03 AM
Here's a thought...
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
The BBC is currently tightening it's budgets and making huge cuts to try and help keep the licence fee down. People will lose their jobs due to this fact so keep your greedy opinion to yourself.
The public demand HD television from the BBC but they certainly don't realise the cost implications.
So the licence fee us now fixed for the next 5 years thus causing cuts.
The public can't have it all!!!
And btw BBC staff get the sack immediately for failing to pay their own licence fee!
Back on point, I don't think the BBC have purchased that amount of adobe licences or hardware to go with... I would know.
seems back in 2007 they bought into 2000 CS5 licences
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. 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. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
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.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. 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. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
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.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:09 AM
How is someone stealing bandwidth, if they are paying for unlimited data. If anything ATT is stealing from them by not allowing them to use their data that they paying for....
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
ATT isn't stealing anything. And they are giving you unlimited data on your phone and your phone only because THAT is what you agreed to.
If you want to change the rules, then att can enforce the rules YOU agreed to.
MacRumors
Sep 20, 12:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Besides announcing the number of movies that Disney has sold, iPod Observer notes (http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489) that CEO Bob Iger also provided some impressions of Apple's pre-announced iTV device which is due in the first quarter of 2007.
Iger describes the device's functionality:
It's wireless. It detects the presence of computers in your home; in a very simple way you designate the computer you want to feed it and it wirelessly feeds whatever you downloaded on iTunes which include videos, TV, music videos, movies or your entire iTunes music library to your television set.
And also explains that it is very easy to control and the appeal to content developers is to provide them a way to sell content to the DVR/TVR audience.
...if they've forgotten to set their TiVo device or their TVR or they just have no plan to do it but they want to watch an episode that they missed, they can go to iTunes, buy it for $1.99, [send it] to the set-top box source wirelessly and watch it on the television."
Iger also indicates that the device does indeed contain a hard drive... a fact that was not entirely clear from the preview.
MacCentral has posted (http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/itvfaq/index.php) a question/answer article for iTV which gives an overview of the device, in case you missed the original preview (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060912161621.shtml).
Long term Apple fans will remember that Apple almost launched an Apple Set Top Box (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Set_Top_Box) years ago but it was never officially released. Interestingly, the system was described as "Apple's ITV system" (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2000/04/20000426204518.shtml) in a press-release, indicating that Apple has recycled this codename (iTV). The final name for the upcoming system has not yet been decided.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 01:44 PM
To be fair, I knew what you meant with your comment, but frankly there wasn't any sarcasm in my statement. You were attempting to defend your earlier poorly-constructed post, and I was bemused by it.
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, SC. But if you put your mouse cursor on this :rolleyes: smiley, you'll see the word "Sarcastic."
aftk2
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
I agree with a previous poster who was longing for a developer kit, and with the recent post about third party addons. This is an exciting aspect to iTV, made possible because it streams its content from the host Mac.
For example, I'd hope they'd put in some simple way to stream the contents of my dashboard with one click onto a transparent overlay onto whatever I'm watching. Heh - check MySpace from the couch.
Wait! Did I say that? I mean, uh...get weather reports. And up to date stock information. Er. Yeah. That's it.
For example, I'd hope they'd put in some simple way to stream the contents of my dashboard with one click onto a transparent overlay onto whatever I'm watching. Heh - check MySpace from the couch.
Wait! Did I say that? I mean, uh...get weather reports. And up to date stock information. Er. Yeah. That's it.
FF_productions
Jul 11, 09:54 PM
I cannot wait!!!
arn
Oct 7, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by samdweck
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
Sam... you need to chill.
Personal attacks and pure emotional posts are not very helpful. The point of this site is not to be Pro-Mac at all costs.
A fast enough Pentium will beat a 1.25GHz G4. How fast the Pentium has to be appears to be a point of contention... but that's all it is... as long as people keep it civil... it's cool.
Besides, alex_ant's post was a joke. Slow down, and read the intent of the posts.
arn
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
diamond.g
Apr 21, 07:34 AM
I have the job that I do because I know MUCH more about Windows than you do obviously. If you think what I posted above is a bunch of fud then you really don't know anything about Windows OS or manual malware removal. There is all kinds of ways malware can hide and on Windows many times the only way you know its on the system is by finding altered registry keys, but removing the key doesn't remove the malware so you have to manually dig for files. Most of the time you can find them by looking but some malware uses the feature to hide folders completely even if you tell the system to show all files. If you want a prime example of a virus that does this look up and infect your system with Oboma (yes its spelled incorrectly). It went around our workplace all the time and most of the time it used the file hiding technique mentioned above. Another is WD32Silly (or something close to that). Thats another one that always did it. With over 6,000 users to support I see this stuff all the time.
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
EDIT: This is why tools that access files outside the OS are popular, like BartPE and various other packages. You can see these files if Windows is not booted up and your not plugging the drive into another machine.
Actually....we use Symantec which is the the first scanner we use which doesn't find anything ;) Or, to its credit it will find something, but not remove it (hence how we find out the names half of the time). Honestly though you really want multi-layered scanning. If the program on the computer doesn't catch anything it goes to IT and we scan it with other tools, as a last resort we will manually remove it but if it doesn't work or ends up being to "messy" the machine gets re-imaged.Um, not to sound mean, but if your users still have rights to install software/malware then you are doing it wrong.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
What is wrong with Lil Wayne?
citizenzen
Apr 23, 10:28 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
Oh please. If you even bothered to read any of the descriptions of those sites you would find the majority of them are faith based to begin with. There is a huge difference pointless discussion for the sake of argument and forums dedicated to learning about how to better implement one's faith, learn about it, pray for each other, etc.
I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the internet who call themselves Christian and are communicating with one another on forums.
If you want to make the value judgement about the quality of their faith, then that's your call.
Personally, I wouldn't go there.
NT1440
Apr 24, 06:06 PM
"interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes."
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
Will people ever learn the whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. That line is NOTHING but a twisted attempt to cast the muslim population in a bad light. News flash people there are 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. If the religion is as dangerous as some would like us to believe, rather than just plain old extremism (as any religion has), then the world would be in total ruins by now. After all, a whole quarter of the world population is comprised entirely of terrorists :rolleyes:
Side note on correlation/causation
Interesting theory in International Relations:
No two countries with a McDonalds has been to war with one another in the last 30 years, therefore it is clear that McDonalds causes world peace.
sushi
Mar 12, 04:24 AM
I think that the key is not to get ahead of ourselves.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
IMHO, it's best to rely upon information provided from a variety of news sources and government sources and then decide for ourselves. It's too easy to jump the gun right now with regards to the nuclear plants.
Again, just my opinion.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:22 PM
Not supporting actions is hate?
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
You do real that Tomasi is talking about the attacks on "People who criticise gay sexual relations..."
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
No comments:
Post a Comment