.:[Double Click To][Close]:.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

michelle obama vail skiing

michelle obama vail skiing. President Obama headed to Camp
  • President Obama headed to Camp



  • BenRoethig
    Oct 26, 09:04 AM
    I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?

    The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.





    michelle obama vail skiing. First Lady Michelle Obama and
  • First Lady Michelle Obama and



  • larrybeo
    Mar 18, 09:43 AM
    People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.





    michelle obama vail skiing. Michelle Obama is taking the
  • Michelle Obama is taking the



  • puma1552
    Mar 15, 10:10 AM
    Am I hearing the expert om TV right? He's saying the seawater being pumped in is just *around* the core container to stop it from overheating and melting. It's not actually *into* the core to cool it down.

    So basically these fire engines are just pumping water onto the outside of a red hot oven to keep it from melting while the oven still burns brightly.

    Do you have the slightest inkling of the what the process of heat transfer is or what a heat transfer coefficient is? Do you have an inkling of what a heat exchanger is, or how this process is similar?

    Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies with a lid you can just pop open and stick a hose down?

    Seawater. I hear that's effective against Triffids too..

    Any idea why the boron is being added?

    You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...

    Our assurances are getting hammered by new events? Last I checked there wasn't a disaster or catastrophe. I woudn't say anyone's been getting "hammered".

    Oh lord, you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?

    Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent.

    Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.

    leaving the nuclear situation discussion aside for now: interestingly even a town which actually had very expensive tsunami protection wall was hit since it simply wasn't nowhere high enough
    the most important point now will be to get the infrastracture running again because those fuel/electricity/food shortages are now turning to be really problematic

    Tsunami wall, where'd you read that? There are literally trillions of TONS of force behind a tsunami, who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that? Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?

    2 years exposure a day = 730 years worth of normal background exposure per annum. That's okay then, not as bad as I first calculated. No breast cancer there. Bring the pregnant women in. I'll drink milk from that cow, eat eggs from them chickens. We all get that flying a plane. Not.

    You're really being out of line.

    Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do.

    No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.

    I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..

    I think you're a very paranoid individual, it may be prudent to put on that tinfoil hat and wait this one out in the cupboard while the engineers of the world solve this one.

    What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now.

    Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.

    wtf? x wtf? does not equal wtf^2. :rolleyes:

    I'm guessing you also don't understand that a meltdown is not synonymous with catastrophe. You do realize you can have a partial--or even an entire meltdown--while doing zero damage to the environment or any people, right? After all, you said it yourself--we may be having a partial meltdown right now, but nobody's dying.

    Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event.

    Exactly. There are numerous layers between the fuel and the atmosphere, so even if a couple layers become compromised, you can still avoid a catastrophe.

    The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground.

    And you've been getting hammered by every single iota of science and fact and physics thrown your way, and have addressed literally zero of them, just citing "big governments lie, run for the hills! JEDILEVEL13PURPLEWIZARDROBESPELLCAST!!! I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science, all you do is spit the same rhetoric, that we are all getting "hammered" by the thus-far lack of disaster/death/catastrophe that you are running for the hills from.

    So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way.

    You've yet to be proven wrong? Really? And we've been proven wrong on every count about how there is not a disaster and likely won't be a disaster, and certainly won't be a Chernobyl or anything remotely like it?

    All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.

    We call those safety protocols. Familiar with ISO 14001 or ISO 9001? The people are running? Looks to me like they showed up to work like any other day and were told to leave. I certainly didn't see anyone running out of the plant on NHK TV today. I saw a bunch of people walking out like they would any other day.

    I don't even know why I waste my time.





    michelle obama vail skiing. Michelle Obama visits Vail
  • Michelle Obama visits Vail



  • Trash Can
    Jun 19, 06:44 PM
    panzer06,

    I'm not here to bash AT&T - just sharing my perspective. You may be right - the problem may be within the phone itself. You also make a good point about many people overlooking dropped calls because of texting and such. All I know is that the phone should work in many places that it doesn't - full bars or not. And the problem is not limited to voice.

    I had AT&T prior to Verizon and my experience back then was less than stellar. I took a chance with the iPhone 3G hoping things improved. IMO, it hasn't. FWIW, my sister (non-iPhone user) had AT&T while living in Atlanta and it worked great. However, she encountered a myriad of connection problems when she moved to LA. I'm sure that for every person who says they have problems with ABC in XYZ, there will be someone else who says just the opposite.

    The beauty of all this is that everyone has the ability to choose what works for them.





    michelle obama vail skiing. Mrs. Obama arrived Friday
  • Mrs. Obama arrived Friday



  • digitalbiker
    Sep 12, 05:08 PM
    As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes. When I had my Mac Mini wireless and I tried using Front Row to watch movies from other computers (similar to what iTV is supposed to do) it had a real spotty connection sometimes. The consistency and reliability of a wired connection is yet to be paralleled with anything else.

    I agree 100%. Wireless loses to wired everytime. In addition before too long there are going to be so many 80211 type devices, and phones that soon the bandwidth will get crowded and error prone.





    michelle obama vail skiing. With michelle obama hypocrite
  • With michelle obama hypocrite



  • TedIsraelson
    Oct 7, 12:47 PM
    Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?





    michelle obama vail skiing. First Lady Obama and daughter
  • First Lady Obama and daughter



  • AhmedFaisal
    Mar 15, 09:49 PM
    I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.





    michelle obama vail skiing. President Obama did not join
  • President Obama did not join



  • eawmp1
    Apr 15, 09:13 AM
    However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.

    Or perhaps enlighten them.

    Good on ya, Apple!





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail skiing
  • michelle obama vail skiing



  • MacCoaster
    Oct 12, 06:11 PM
    PCUser:

    Thanks! Didn't think about clock()!

    Though, that gives me 100.8 seconds (assuming 10.08 seconds) when it ran in 10 seconds. Didn't you mean to divide by ten?





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail ribs
  • michelle obama vail ribs



  • NathanMuir
    Apr 24, 11:49 AM
    I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.

    If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return. ;)

    And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail skiing
  • michelle obama vail skiing



  • kingtj
    May 6, 09:27 AM
    Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.

    But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)



    I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.

    AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.

    Kayle





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail pictures.
  • michelle obama vail pictures.



  • ender land
    Apr 23, 09:32 PM
    citizenzen, there are strong elements of faith involved in maintaining a thought-out and convicted worldview, whether theistic or atheistic.





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail skiing
  • michelle obama vail skiing



  • MacCoaster
    Oct 12, 04:19 PM
    javajedi: Well, well... I finally figured out GNUstep and ported your Cocoa program to it--works 100%. Funny thing it's slower than the Java one, but it might be the extra crap I put in there (menus, etc.). 10 seconds compared to 7 seconds with Java. But that's still faster than 70 seconds on a G4. I'll be making a pure C port if anyone hasn't.





    michelle obama vail skiing. At 5#39;11quot; 175 lbs, Michelle#39;s
  • At 5#39;11quot; 175 lbs, Michelle#39;s



  • jettredmont
    May 3, 03:44 PM
    Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...


    I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.


    You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.


    Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.

    You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.


    Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.

    Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.

    Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.


    Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).

    But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.


    UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.


    Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.


    There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.


    Sorry! I know; it burns!

    ...


    Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.


    Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.

    Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail skiing
  • michelle obama vail skiing



  • fivepoint
    Mar 16, 01:03 PM
    I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.

    This is interesing...

    To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.

    Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?

    Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?

    I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.



    Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.

    I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.




    The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?

    Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.

    Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.

    Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?

    Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?

    What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.

    I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:


    Few things
    1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
    2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
    3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.

    1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
    2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
    3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail skiing
  • michelle obama vail skiing



  • arkitect
    Apr 15, 11:25 AM
    Sorry, but do you not see how horrid this position is?

    "We won't hate you, as long as you deny who you are."

    Jesus H. Christ.

    Errr. Yes I do. :confused:
    That's why I called him out on it.
    He supressed the part that really matters.





    michelle obama vail skiing. michelle obama vail skiing
  • michelle obama vail skiing



  • mscriv
    Apr 6, 01:39 PM
    i think some people just hold their preference too dearly sometimes, and then insist that anything that falls outside their comfort-zone is annoying.

    that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.

    in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
    take control of the situation and become fluent in both.

    approach it with the right frame of mind.
    you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.

    Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.

    I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.

    For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.

    Best of luck with your decision.

    Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.





    michelle obama vail skiing. First Lady Michelle Obama and
  • First Lady Michelle Obama and



  • flopticalcube
    Apr 24, 10:04 AM
    Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p

    All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.

    Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.

    Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)

    I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.





    michelle obama vail skiing. a short vacation to Vail,
  • a short vacation to Vail,



  • TuckBodi
    Sep 12, 01:11 AM
    I have not read the whole thread here but I must say coming from an iPhone 3g to the iPhone 4 is a night and day difference. I love my iPhone 4. I think since I have had it I have had about 5 total dropped calls. I have had it since late July. I had that many dropped calls in a day with my 3g. I just had to add this in cause I see people complain about the same thing all the time. Dropped call this and dropped call that. Frankly I don't see it. Maybe I just have the super iPhone. LOL! Just my .02 worth!
    -Dave
    Yeah, I gotta sorta agree. You know my iPhone has gotten about 100% better in the past month or so. Instead of 0-1 bars I now get 1-2 bars (except the times I really have an important call and then of course it drops). But drop calls are now only about 2 a day, instead of 3 or 4, so that's nice. Oh yeah, thinking about it, my voice mail is better too....instead of getting it the next day it's now about 12 hours, so that's cool. And my text messages go through most of the time now..whereas I used to have about every fourth one fail, so yeah gotta like that! And retrieving my mail is better as I only get that "can't connect to server" message only 3 times a day now instead of 6 or 7. You know..overall, I they're getting closer to when I first bought the phone several years ago. Wait a second..nope..they gotta ways to go. Just sayin'.





    generik
    Sep 26, 01:39 AM
    Can I ask a question? I'm a bit non-technical when it comes to things like this.

    When particular apps aren't designed to use multiple processors � let's just say randomly, oooo... Adobe Illustrator, for example � what benefit would a machine like this have? Would it run exactly the same as on single processor of the same speed?

    Thanks to anyone who can clarify this for me. :)

    As far as that one application is concerned, no difference, but you get to do so much more in the background =)





    KnightWRX
    May 2, 05:23 PM
    The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.

    This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?

    This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.

    Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.

    I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.

    Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.

    The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.

    I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.





    edesignuk
    Oct 8, 08:43 AM
    That is exactly the weakness of the PC platform. It turns into a zoo where the monkeys and lions roam free and the people have to live in cages... :rolleyes:...but who has the market share?





    millerb7
    May 2, 11:31 AM
    That's never been a reason to give up. I was raised on Shonen Anime. I don't know the meaning of the words "giving up". ;)

    HAHAHA! It's sad that I am probably the only one who liked that comment ;) I am a HUGE Shonen fan lol!





    rdowns
    Apr 15, 11:17 AM
    By hateful things, you're talking about people like the Westboro Baptist Church and their picket signs, right?


    Hate is hardly confined to the wingnut branch of religion.