DavidLeblond
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
fivepoint
Mar 22, 06:48 AM
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from Brhawk Obama:
�I�m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. �The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.� Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We�ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn�t do that.�
�Well, look, if that�s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now � where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife � which we haven�t done,�
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HKPFLjvX
�I�m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. �The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.� Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We�ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn�t do that.�
�Well, look, if that�s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now � where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife � which we haven�t done,�
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HKPFLjvX
NJRonbo
Jun 23, 02:37 PM
Let's be frank...
Whether totally Radio Shack's fault or
not this was a very sloppy launch for the
company.
Quite frankly, I think they were just given
the ******** end of the stick by Apple who
obviously is throwing them whatever leftovers
they have which now must be distributed
across all their stores.
I'm stuck. This phone is costing me $650
and I will not spend that kind of money without
getting $200 off on my trade-in. So I am
sitting here just waiting it out. It may work
out well for me because I may luck out on a
White iPhone by the time my store gets stock.
Whether totally Radio Shack's fault or
not this was a very sloppy launch for the
company.
Quite frankly, I think they were just given
the ******** end of the stick by Apple who
obviously is throwing them whatever leftovers
they have which now must be distributed
across all their stores.
I'm stuck. This phone is costing me $650
and I will not spend that kind of money without
getting $200 off on my trade-in. So I am
sitting here just waiting it out. It may work
out well for me because I may luck out on a
White iPhone by the time my store gets stock.
bibbz
Jun 12, 08:30 AM
Been skimming over 4 pages here so
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
Yes, whole process takes less than 5 minutes.
You come in tell us you want to trade in
We log in and appraise it.
Tell you the appraisal.
You approve or decline.
If you approve, we then hit accept and generate a shipping label and some bar codes with a sku number, and amount of credit.
We put your old iphone in a box slap the label on it and put it to the side.
We then ring up whatever you are wanting to purchase.
Scan the sku that tells the computer its about to have an amount scanned.
Scan the amount.
Instant Happiness!
If your total ticket is more than the appraisal it removes the appraised amount, if its less we apply the rest to a gift card.
forgive me if this has been answered...
The only way this Radio Shack deal seems
to work well is if I can walk in the store,
hand them my 3GS phone and get immediate
credit towards an iPhone 4.
If I have to mail my 3GS back to RS and
then wait for a gift card to arrive in the
mail and then go to the store and buy the
iPhone 4 it is just not worth it.
So, the question is, can I simply go to
my Radio Shack store, hand them my
3GS and get immediate store credit on
the new iPhone?
Yes, whole process takes less than 5 minutes.
You come in tell us you want to trade in
We log in and appraise it.
Tell you the appraisal.
You approve or decline.
If you approve, we then hit accept and generate a shipping label and some bar codes with a sku number, and amount of credit.
We put your old iphone in a box slap the label on it and put it to the side.
We then ring up whatever you are wanting to purchase.
Scan the sku that tells the computer its about to have an amount scanned.
Scan the amount.
Instant Happiness!
If your total ticket is more than the appraisal it removes the appraised amount, if its less we apply the rest to a gift card.
Gugulino
Apr 6, 04:43 AM
precision editor? there are a million bajillion ways to "precision edit" in FCP that are easy and accurate. Just because there's no "one click" flashy UI to go with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, there are ways in FCP, but they are clunky! It was much easier for my project to do it in iMovie. Naturally, it is not true for every project.
For example, I can't do Multicam edits in iMovie. FCP has also its advantages, for sure! If FCP could marry with iMovie and make a child, the new FCP, that would be heaven.
Yes, there are ways in FCP, but they are clunky! It was much easier for my project to do it in iMovie. Naturally, it is not true for every project.
For example, I can't do Multicam edits in iMovie. FCP has also its advantages, for sure! If FCP could marry with iMovie and make a child, the new FCP, that would be heaven.
MacPhilosopher
Apr 10, 02:21 AM
Oh, we are totally getting an iPad app to go along with this program. I can feel it.
I would oh-so love the ability to down-rez a Final Cut project and send it to an iPad...do all my rough cutting there...and then bring it back to the Mac and re-link it to the real footage to do the detail work.
I've had a lot of fun playing with iMovie on the iPad. I am drooling for something similar that works as part of a Final Cut Pro workflow.
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
I'm not so sure about the down res option, it sounds like an awful lot of time spent compressing, though I sure hope it is some type of interface, perhaps as an input device or palette.
I would oh-so love the ability to down-rez a Final Cut project and send it to an iPad...do all my rough cutting there...and then bring it back to the Mac and re-link it to the real footage to do the detail work.
I've had a lot of fun playing with iMovie on the iPad. I am drooling for something similar that works as part of a Final Cut Pro workflow.
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
I'm not so sure about the down res option, it sounds like an awful lot of time spent compressing, though I sure hope it is some type of interface, perhaps as an input device or palette.
Multimedia
Aug 17, 01:59 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.Not so. I can only run one compression process at a time on the Quad G5 unless I want the speed of that process and others I want to run at the same time to be compromized. Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH.Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time.This is the place where you are misunderstanding how LITTLE one can do with only 4 cores. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.Not from where I'm sitting. The opposite is true for me.Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.But speed is not our problem. Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:
twoodcc
Aug 18, 08:32 PM
NO WAY!! that would be awesome
yeah...please share a video if you can
yeah...please share a video if you can
DotCom2
Apr 27, 09:25 AM
Problem is, if you turn "Location Services" off, then you can't use "Find My iPhone" which I think is quite a useful feature! :(
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Hellhammer
Apr 10, 02:05 AM
I'd wait for Haswell or maybe even Rockwell which will be the 16nm shrink of Haswell.
Rockwell doesn't exist anymore, it's Broadwell now ;) After that it will be Sky Lake (16nm) and Skymont (11nm).
Rockwell doesn't exist anymore, it's Broadwell now ;) After that it will be Sky Lake (16nm) and Skymont (11nm).
ptysell
Apr 25, 02:24 PM
This is why we need loser pays in the United States.
mlrproducts
Aug 11, 10:20 AM
Hurry up and take my money Apple! Here is my wishlist, the first section is PLAUSIBLE:
1) Released for GSM sim cards (probable, maybe support for CDMA later on)
2) Bluetooth (well, I think this is a given)
3) Good integration with iCal, Mail, etc
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
4) Not tied to a service provider
5) Affordable LOL
6) Wifi built in
7) Modem support for dialup over GSM
8) Lightweight, small FF
1) Released for GSM sim cards (probable, maybe support for CDMA later on)
2) Bluetooth (well, I think this is a given)
3) Good integration with iCal, Mail, etc
Now what I WANT that might not happen:
4) Not tied to a service provider
5) Affordable LOL
6) Wifi built in
7) Modem support for dialup over GSM
8) Lightweight, small FF
tazinlwfl
Apr 25, 01:44 PM
It's moments like these that make me ashamed that I live in Florida...
Oh, and if they're from Tampa, they're probably desperate - the economy over there is one of the worst in the nation.
Oh, and if they're from Tampa, they're probably desperate - the economy over there is one of the worst in the nation.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 04:20 AM
I'm sorry, Bill, but your logic has one big flaw.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
I don't see any point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex, since I think homosexuality is a psychological problem caused by nurture, not by nature. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.
In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.
Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.
If you decided to live celibately while other heterosexuals are open to have sex in a [monogamous] relationship, that's fine by me but what you're implying is that every homosexual should be celibate, so what's the point of being attracted to the same-sex at all in your logic?
I believe you have to label yourself asexual from now on, since not having or craving sex makes you neither a homosexual nor heterosexual.
I believe that every "gay" person should be celibate. I also think opposite-sex monogamous marriage is the only appropriate context for sex.
I'm heterosexual. I still feel opposite-sex attraction, but my sex drive has been weak for years. I'm grateful for that weakness, too, because I don't see others as mere objects.
I don't see any point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the same sex, since I think homosexuality is a psychological problem caused by nurture, not by nature. My mom used to counsel same-sex-attracted people when she was a nurse and a counselor at a local drug rehabilitation hospital. Her patients liked her, even after he told them that she thought same-sex sex was never okay. They respected her for her honesty. She was brave enough to tell them some things that they didn't want to hear, because she knew that they needed to hear them. Political correctness is evil when it prevents people from saying things that others need to hear for their own good.
In about 1962, Pope John XXII refused to condemn heresies because he thought mercy was better than severity. But he ignored that people sometimes need to be severe to show their love for others. I'm all for tact and gentleness. But I'm against political correctness that protects feeling at the expense of the potentially offended person's physical, psychological, or moral wellbeing. John XXIII was like a doctor who would say, "I don't want to talk about killing bacteria, cancer cells, and so on. I think I should just promote good heath." But what if the patient died because, say, the doctor refused to do chemo or wouldn't tell a patient that without it, she would die of cancer? Is the doctor being kind? Is he being negligent? If he doesn't care enough about his patients to tell them bad news that they need to hear, he should stop seeing them.
Here at the board, the others are welcome believe anything they want to believe about me. If I make some enemies by merely saying what I believe, then that gives me a chance to love them. But I refuse to be politically correct.
dethmaShine
Apr 19, 02:50 PM
I had a Casio Personal Diary in the late 80's that had the exact same grid.
Im not a troll either without Apple I wouldn't have a job.
Well, I am not saying apple invented the icon grid. :rolleyes:
I am specifically pointing to the post where you say iOS's icon grid copies PalmOS. Back-tracing?
Im not a troll either without Apple I wouldn't have a job.
Well, I am not saying apple invented the icon grid. :rolleyes:
I am specifically pointing to the post where you say iOS's icon grid copies PalmOS. Back-tracing?
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 12:29 PM
I'd say even the icon grid claim is reaching. The pictures shown all show the Android application drawer. The actual home screen on Galaxy S devices, what shows up after unlocking, is not the icon grid with a dock. You have to dig into the phone to get to the grid of icons, which frankly again has been shown to be a pretty standard phone UI. Older Palm/Sony models had the "icon grid" UIs in their phones also. :
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
noahtk
Apr 6, 01:55 PM
WE CAN ONLY HOPE!!! A price drop would be nice too.
EagerDragon
Nov 29, 05:12 AM
Just tell them that they are getting the same deal they had before, or they can sell their music elsewhere. Apple is not a new comer to the industry like Microsoft.
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
Standard response from the music industry, "Our customers are thieves, and have iPods full of illigal music". Tell them to Stick it where .......
vansouza
Nov 28, 09:59 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
Perhaps the pencil makers should demand a payment from the pen makers... and if you have a pen and paper you must be copying documents so paper producers should pay book dealers... I could live never buying another Universal song on iTunes... thank you very much Bill Gates... his check to Universal is what may be $900. for all Zunes sold... what a joke...
Reuters reports (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-11-28T213349Z_01_N28267036_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-SUMMIT-UNIVERSALMUSIC-IPOD.xml&WTmodLoc=TechNewsHome_C2_technologyNews-1) that Universal Music Group Chief Executive said on Tuesday that they may seek a royalty from Apple for iPod sales:
Universal made news earlier this month (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/11/20061109124909.shtml) when it was reported that Microsoft had agreed to pay Universal Music a fee for every new Zune Music Player sold. Music studios, of course, currently get a cut from every song sold, but do not get any percentage of iPod sales.
Perhaps the pencil makers should demand a payment from the pen makers... and if you have a pen and paper you must be copying documents so paper producers should pay book dealers... I could live never buying another Universal song on iTunes... thank you very much Bill Gates... his check to Universal is what may be $900. for all Zunes sold... what a joke...
vincenz
Apr 27, 07:58 AM
A "bug" right? ;)
DotCom2
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
If I were a criminal or a terrorist I would be upset about this data collection. Since I am not, I would rather the data be kept on my phone if it will help my GPS work better/faster.:rolleyes:
Tommy Wasabi
Apr 25, 04:36 PM
Block box in your car tracks not only where you are but the speed in which you are traveling. These black boxes are used by the insurance company if you get in an accident.
The phone company tracks where you are - and it is stored and can be requested by any law enforcement agency and have the data within 10 minutes of the submission.
I wonder if people are going to sue the auto industry, the insurance industry, and the phone companies.
Oh wait, this is American, land of lawyers - give them until Friday to write their brief and file in a some courthouse located in the Eastern District of Texas.
The phone company tracks where you are - and it is stored and can be requested by any law enforcement agency and have the data within 10 minutes of the submission.
I wonder if people are going to sue the auto industry, the insurance industry, and the phone companies.
Oh wait, this is American, land of lawyers - give them until Friday to write their brief and file in a some courthouse located in the Eastern District of Texas.
0 comments:
Post a Comment