neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
Cyrax
Apr 6, 10:45 AM
I just switched. Like, a week ago.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
1. Expose + Spaces are GREAT window managers. I took to both like ducks to water.
2. Spotlight is pretty awesome and intuitive. However, Win 7 has features like that integrated.
3. I never used the Explorer, always just navigated through folders one by one (bad habit, I guess). So Finder has been a bit of a learning curve especially since the opening folders behavior is not quite the same. Like when you double click on a new folder a new window opens up.
4. No registry is great. Installing/uninstalling apps is clean and efficient. Just the way it should be.
5. The Dock is a mess. Of course, this is nothing new. Many, many people have spent tons of time talking about it. However, it is fairly intuitive and simple to use. It's also very tweakable for those who want to do it. I guess that's why Apple has kept it around.
6. I like how Mac OS X keeps all the power user features out there and accessible. Automator for example. OS X looks nice and is easy to use but is actually extremely flexible and powerful. Windows, of course, you can do a lot to tweak it, but it just doesn't feel the same.
7. Quicktime-stuff and iTunes run MUCH better on the Mac. No surprise there.
deputy_doofy
Apr 21, 07:54 AM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 10:57 PM
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Nice. You've proven my point with that one statement. Congratulations, you are my first I & R.
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Speedy2
Oct 7, 11:10 AM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 04:33 PM
Far as jailbreaking, to put it in perspective, look how bad Verizon cripples ALL their phones on release. Yea I have to hack the iphone to install maybe 5 choice apps I can't get otherwise, but at least my phone didn't have its GPS and bluetooth disabled, RAM cut in half, wi-fi disabled so I'd have to use 3g even though I'm at home, etc
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
And how does carrier matter at all in your argument. Sorry but that entire augment there has no meaning in this debate.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 25, 03:49 PM
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
slate1
Sep 20, 01:13 PM
My thoughts on the hard-drive are very similar to "adamflip's" and "chromos's" in that it's simply a way to get around the video streaming limitations of the 802.11g protocol.
If you've got a movie sitting on your iMac in one room and it can simply transfer the iTunes video file to the iTV in the living room then the iTV could begin playback in a fairly short period of time while it caches the remainder of the movie to the iTV HD during playback. Voila - streaming problem solved.
I'm presuming that all the functionality to stream music (i.e. - airport express like...) will be incorportaed into the device and that no data other than that which is cached to it will be stored on the hard-drive. In other words, you won't store movies, music, etc. on the iTV - you'd continue to do that via your desktop Mac and manage them in iTunes.
I, personally, could care less about any DVR functionality as my HD cable-box already provides me with this functionality.
What I would love to see is DVD playback so that this box could essentially replace my existing DVD player in my home theater system.
If you've got a movie sitting on your iMac in one room and it can simply transfer the iTunes video file to the iTV in the living room then the iTV could begin playback in a fairly short period of time while it caches the remainder of the movie to the iTV HD during playback. Voila - streaming problem solved.
I'm presuming that all the functionality to stream music (i.e. - airport express like...) will be incorportaed into the device and that no data other than that which is cached to it will be stored on the hard-drive. In other words, you won't store movies, music, etc. on the iTV - you'd continue to do that via your desktop Mac and manage them in iTunes.
I, personally, could care less about any DVR functionality as my HD cable-box already provides me with this functionality.
What I would love to see is DVD playback so that this box could essentially replace my existing DVD player in my home theater system.
Chris Blount
Mar 18, 08:19 AM
I'm happy to see some of the responsible replies here. I also say bravo to AT&T. It seems like whenever a thread like this comes up, it brings out the MacRumors den of thieves who like to circumvent data plans and steal data that the rest of us our paying for.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
I like the teathering plan and don't mind paying for it. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't have subscribed. Simple as that. Nobody is twisting my arm.
I will agree that AT&T is taking us to the cleaners. It sucks, but I either don't give them my money or suck it up. We all make choices. Mine is simply that I won't steal to get what I want.
Icaras
Apr 9, 12:43 AM
That's a complete joke, surely? There's no way you can compare console gaming, in basically a home arcade, to swiping your fingers around on a 3.5" screen. No way. I am a gamer, and always will be.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
You're right about prematurely comparing iOS to console gaming though. However, I feel iOS absolutely competes with handheld devices by Sony and Nintendo.
I feel the quality is there for many games and growing. I think it would be foolish to dismiss gaming on iOS when there is obvious growth and a healthy consumer market happening at the App Store.
Gaming on the iPhone is good for 2-minute bursts, such as when sitting on the toilet. It's not a great games device. Most of the games are cheap with no replay value.
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
You're right about prematurely comparing iOS to console gaming though. However, I feel iOS absolutely competes with handheld devices by Sony and Nintendo.
I feel the quality is there for many games and growing. I think it would be foolish to dismiss gaming on iOS when there is obvious growth and a healthy consumer market happening at the App Store.
skunk
Mar 28, 11:29 AM
And I doubt you'd say, "Hi. I'm Bill McEnaney and I'm heterosexual. Pleased to meet you."He wouldn't have to: he wears his dogma on his sleeve.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 07:11 PM
Including a completely identifiable chief god and pantheon shared with other local polytheistic religions. The only difference was that in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the polytheism was suppressed and the chief god reigned unchallenged.
Maybe not in those exact words, butandcome pretty damned close.
The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical. They're not a commandment or an exhortation to continue doing those things. Sharia law hasn't been developed using those verses.
No, Jesus Christ's law takes over all laws from the old testament, and anyway those verses you quoted aren't laws, they're just saying what happened, they're not prescriptions of how to act or behave. The Qur'an is prescriptive.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
Maybe not in those exact words, butandcome pretty damned close.
The Old Testament is absolutely valid for Christians. Without the Old Testament, the entire dynastic myth collapses on itself.
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical. They're not a commandment or an exhortation to continue doing those things. Sharia law hasn't been developed using those verses.
No, Jesus Christ's law takes over all laws from the old testament, and anyway those verses you quoted aren't laws, they're just saying what happened, they're not prescriptions of how to act or behave. The Qur'an is prescriptive.
The Ahmadiyya sect goes against the first pillar of Islam. :/
so you admit that freedom of conscience is prohibited in Islam and that people who leave their Islamic religion should be sentenced to death? Or are you saying blasphemers should be punished?
In the West we would tolerate the Ahmadiyya, not persecute them. Would Muslims in the West disobey our tolerance of the Ahmadiyya because it contravenes Sharia law?
spazzcat
May 5, 01:28 PM
Does this data have number of calls vs number of dropped calls? It looks like they just asked people if they have had a dropped call? I had maybe one dropped call this whole year. But I don't talk on my phone as much as someone else may.
SAIRUS
Mar 18, 11:15 AM
I'm a little split on this. My usage is under 5 gigs usually 99% of the time with legit Netflix streaming, pandora, and GPS usage.
Have I tethered before? I won't lie and say I haven't. I have a developer account and created an app to try it out.
That said, AT&T should upgrade their networks too. I pay for a service, and I believe they should serve me, not the other way around. If I obey the rules, don't clamp down to avoid upgrades.
Also anyone who says "change providers." I simply say, work doesn't allow me. Let alone, AT&T has the best coverage where I live. Just sucks that while having the fastest 3G is handicapped if you can't use it for a while. I also travel, so GSM is the best option for me.
I wish in America all frequencies between cell phone companies are standardized to the other foreign countries so all cell phone carriers would have to actually compete for your business.
Have I tethered before? I won't lie and say I haven't. I have a developer account and created an app to try it out.
That said, AT&T should upgrade their networks too. I pay for a service, and I believe they should serve me, not the other way around. If I obey the rules, don't clamp down to avoid upgrades.
Also anyone who says "change providers." I simply say, work doesn't allow me. Let alone, AT&T has the best coverage where I live. Just sucks that while having the fastest 3G is handicapped if you can't use it for a while. I also travel, so GSM is the best option for me.
I wish in America all frequencies between cell phone companies are standardized to the other foreign countries so all cell phone carriers would have to actually compete for your business.
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 08:16 AM
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/electricalgeneration.png
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
Nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel which has proven itself capable of producing sizable amounts of electricity. Wind, solar, etc. are a complete joke as of today. Instead of the OP, I guess the question you really need to answer is, should we make decisions based on sound reality based scientific data, or short-term, panic-mode, irrational reactions to the effects of an extremely rare national emergency which could have been better prepared for (like not putting the plant on the ****** BEACH!)
For those of you advocating the elimination or reduction of nuke power, just realize that the only feasible alternative currently is...
Drill baby, drill!
BornAgainMac
May 6, 06:31 AM
Maybe it isn't AT&T but the iPhone caller that is bragging about his iPhone, iMac, Apple, and Microsoft is dead, Flash sucks, Google copies... <click>
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:55 PM
@skunk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Inter-IslandVery interesting. Thanks. :)
KindredMAC
Sep 12, 08:37 PM
Could this actually be the Mac Home or iHome resurrection of the name of the fake product that came out a couple of years ago????
mpstrex
Aug 29, 07:22 PM
What about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
