CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
amaxware
Nov 3, 11:20 AM
Anyone hear of Apple going the opposite direction with the Xeon.
i.e. how about a single dual-core?
i.e. how about a single dual-core?
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
KingYaba
Aug 29, 06:27 PM
Not all organic foods are actually organic.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Come on, people, let's cut Greenpeace some slack, here. Their fanaticism only goes to certain lengths...the reason they protest Apple and other U.S. businesses is because if they actually protested in places where pollution was a major issue (like China), they'd all get shot. :)
sawah
Mar 18, 08:49 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
arn
Oct 7, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by samdweck
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
sorry arn, but it pisses me off! i mean really, i am very pro-mac and i should chill, but what does a pc person have business doing here... sorry though!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
AppliedVisual
Oct 19, 11:18 AM
I wonder if one of the Leopard "Top Secrets" is Core Control so we may assign how many cores for each applicaiton we know can use more than one.
That would be nice. Although, I don't think it would be too difficult to write such an app that could be controlled via a dashboard widget. I haven't dug that deep into OSX programming and XCode, but it will definitely be something I'll have to look into doing if Leopard doesn't have the ability and I've got 8 cores to manage.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four Then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and really needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
Same here. Only 6 years ago, I had to have a Pentium workstation with 10 separate systems for rendering. Over the years, those numbers have fluxuated, but now we've come to a whole new way of working. A single Mac Pro with 8GB and the lowest video and HDD option (with the dual-core Woodcrest) can replace 3 of the systems on my render farm and still provide a performance increase. I'm really looking into XServe, but they're rather expensive. The preliminary reviews are making me drool, but that's a lot of money for render nodes. I'm so tempted though - 8-core XServe w/16GB RAM looks like a winner. 4 of those in my rack would render all my 3D faster than I can model and set up the scenes. ...It's only money, right? :D
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able.
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
That would be nice. Although, I don't think it would be too difficult to write such an app that could be controlled via a dashboard widget. I haven't dug that deep into OSX programming and XCode, but it will definitely be something I'll have to look into doing if Leopard doesn't have the ability and I've got 8 cores to manage.
This product may be one of the most anticipated by me in my entire 22 years with Mac. I really can't wait for it to ship. Going from Two to Four Then Eight Cores in less than one year, and not just for show but for really finding a need and really needing all that additional horsepower, - only since February '06 for me - is a pretty amazing technological leaping experience. :)
Same here. Only 6 years ago, I had to have a Pentium workstation with 10 separate systems for rendering. Over the years, those numbers have fluxuated, but now we've come to a whole new way of working. A single Mac Pro with 8GB and the lowest video and HDD option (with the dual-core Woodcrest) can replace 3 of the systems on my render farm and still provide a performance increase. I'm really looking into XServe, but they're rather expensive. The preliminary reviews are making me drool, but that's a lot of money for render nodes. I'm so tempted though - 8-core XServe w/16GB RAM looks like a winner. 4 of those in my rack would render all my 3D faster than I can model and set up the scenes. ...It's only money, right? :D
My 30" Dell arrives tomorrow, Friday October 20. Whoopie! Mac Pro 8-Core Ready, Willing & Able.
Congrats! Hope you have better luck than me.. I had to refuse mine on monday because the box was mangled and crushed. Dell is shipping a new one, but I don't have tracking/delivery info yet. :( But like I said before, I have one already and love the the thing.
AppliedVisual
Oct 11, 12:53 PM
I can't stand less than 1200 high. You know Dell monitors rotate too and rotation is supported with ATI Video cards but not NVIDEA.
Er... No rotation with nVidia? nVidia supports rotation on Windows, haven't tried it on Mac. I don't see any option for it on my G5, but I just assumed it was a limitation of the 30" Dell I'm using (doesn't rotate). Actually that's a dumb assumption. Weird... Wonder why.
Link please?
I'd like the link to that coupon as well too... Although it probably doesn't work with the current 15% off (which expires today, doesn't it?).
Er... No rotation with nVidia? nVidia supports rotation on Windows, haven't tried it on Mac. I don't see any option for it on my G5, but I just assumed it was a limitation of the 30" Dell I'm using (doesn't rotate). Actually that's a dumb assumption. Weird... Wonder why.
Link please?
I'd like the link to that coupon as well too... Although it probably doesn't work with the current 15% off (which expires today, doesn't it?).
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:57 PM
And you can swap 'em right in. If Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro upgrade with some other goodies (I'm personally hoping for DDR2, as the 8GB of goofy RAM in my Mac Pro cost me an arm and a leg.) I'm just going to buy a couple quad core chips and toss them in my machine.
ericinboston
Apr 28, 09:31 AM
Next quarter you'll see very, very different numbers. Over the next 3-5 years you'll see the decline of the entire PC market and a shift over to tablets and pad devices as they become more capable and powerful.
Very true.
Compare what you did on a personal computer in 1995 vs. today. I would say web-based activity is a very very high percentage of what people use a personal computer...since even 2005. Online banking, email, uploading/sharing photos, Youtube, chat, skype, research, maps & directions, etc.
It doesn't make a difference if you use a Mac or Dell or a Linux box...as long as there is a browser on the system, you can do all your work.
Sure, there is the occasional thick client (iTunes, MS Office, Photoshop) but those are ALL available on the Mac and PC environments.
Now tablets come along. They failed so many times before because of all the new operating systems they had and thick client re-compiles they had to do. No more. 90% of the stuff consumers are doing is web...so just slap Firefox on the thing and you're golden. Then for the 10% of stuff that isn't web-based, have the OS be attractive to app writers....and those 3 example apps above are being ported to the tablets.
Tablets are definitely the wave of the future of personal computing...but I will state that the desktop will be around for quite some time for the folks (like me) who although do a lot of web stuff, have a lot of thick client apps and/or need (non-need) to use a desktop vs. a tablet.
Very true.
Compare what you did on a personal computer in 1995 vs. today. I would say web-based activity is a very very high percentage of what people use a personal computer...since even 2005. Online banking, email, uploading/sharing photos, Youtube, chat, skype, research, maps & directions, etc.
It doesn't make a difference if you use a Mac or Dell or a Linux box...as long as there is a browser on the system, you can do all your work.
Sure, there is the occasional thick client (iTunes, MS Office, Photoshop) but those are ALL available on the Mac and PC environments.
Now tablets come along. They failed so many times before because of all the new operating systems they had and thick client re-compiles they had to do. No more. 90% of the stuff consumers are doing is web...so just slap Firefox on the thing and you're golden. Then for the 10% of stuff that isn't web-based, have the OS be attractive to app writers....and those 3 example apps above are being ported to the tablets.
Tablets are definitely the wave of the future of personal computing...but I will state that the desktop will be around for quite some time for the folks (like me) who although do a lot of web stuff, have a lot of thick client apps and/or need (non-need) to use a desktop vs. a tablet.
Iscariot
Mar 25, 01:28 PM
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church".
.
I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point
A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church".
.
I've already presented my views on why I think that speech is different from physical acts.
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:10 PM
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
backinblack875
Apr 8, 11:03 PM
I hope they poach someone that likes BUTTONS.
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 06:05 PM
Perhaps we do not possess the mental capacity to observe or understand that he (or they) exist? How can one be sure that we do?
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
That's the line of thought of the type of agnostic who believes that we can't know (rather than someone who is undecided or doesn't know). But the all the speculation is fun, regardless.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 9, 11:59 AM
Watch as Apple continues to drink Nintendo and Sony's milkshakes. It amazing that Nintendo is so dismissive of Apple's devices, when Apple is doing exactly what Nintendo did with the Wii. Blue Ocean strategy.
samcraig
Mar 18, 11:15 AM
This. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for tethering, but the $20/mo extra or nothing is really unacceptable. For those of us who only tethering sporadically, it's really a waste of money paying $20/mo. If the carriers really want an extra revenue stream from tethering, they should have different options available.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't, aye?
When ATT provides options (whether you like them or not) - you have a choice. You can either choose to take advantage of the options, not use them, buck the system and deal with the consequence, or terminate your agreement and move to another company.
When they didn't provide options- people were up in arms over not having any choices..
Everyone can be an armchair critic, lawyer, etc... I would imagine that few if ANYone here is qualified to determine what ATT (or other carriers) can or cannot/should or should not do when it comes to their business model. You speak (naturally so) for yourself and some of your fellow customers.
I would easily pay $5-10 more a month for 1GB of tethering data, and for those who want 2+ gigs for tethering, then $20/mo is fine. They really need a lower option.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't, aye?
When ATT provides options (whether you like them or not) - you have a choice. You can either choose to take advantage of the options, not use them, buck the system and deal with the consequence, or terminate your agreement and move to another company.
When they didn't provide options- people were up in arms over not having any choices..
Everyone can be an armchair critic, lawyer, etc... I would imagine that few if ANYone here is qualified to determine what ATT (or other carriers) can or cannot/should or should not do when it comes to their business model. You speak (naturally so) for yourself and some of your fellow customers.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now.
Nope, not better - faster. Nobody is saying Macs suck - they're saying Macs are slow. I paid $2300 for 550MHz of G4 molasses last year when I could have bought a PC notebook that kicked the pants off it performance-wise. But I don't regret my purchase decision. I would buy the same computer again today (well, maybe the iBook instead).
kazmac
Apr 28, 07:50 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
I used to think like you until I bought an iPad last week.
> I don't miss many sites as I hate flash so no agreement there.
the file system > hope that will be sorted out eventually, but it's not so much of an annoyance for me to worry about it. I'm enjoying my iPad, not forgetting it will cut my phone bill down $60 since it killed my interest in the iPhone. :)
As far as the article 188% is impressive.
As far as Mac sales, hey millions are being sold every quarter. That's insane. I don't ever remember Mac sales like this when I first turned to Macs in the mid 90s.
I used to think like you until I bought an iPad last week.
> I don't miss many sites as I hate flash so no agreement there.
the file system > hope that will be sorted out eventually, but it's not so much of an annoyance for me to worry about it. I'm enjoying my iPad, not forgetting it will cut my phone bill down $60 since it killed my interest in the iPhone. :)
As far as the article 188% is impressive.
As far as Mac sales, hey millions are being sold every quarter. That's insane. I don't ever remember Mac sales like this when I first turned to Macs in the mid 90s.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
carlos700
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:41 PM
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road.
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law. That is the only correct approach to dealing with it, except in cases of governmental injustice. This is not one of those cases, as this causes you no personal or meaningful financial harm. Furthermore, if you are using iTunes music, and you are using iMovie/iDVD, you CAN use tracks in your videos. They import in and you can use them freely in your projects. No step in that process is doing something actively against any terms of service or fair use. If you don't want to use something that supports FairPlay DRM for your project, DON'T BUY MUSIC FROM iTUNES TO DO IT. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED BY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH APPLE AND iTUNES TO USE THE MUSIC ANY OTHER WAY.
It's really very simple. If you want to break your active agreement to follow the terms of use, why should the RIAA uphold their agreement not to infringe on fair use rights? You're breaking your agreement, so why shouldn't they? This is why it's wrong.