flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
iJaz
Aug 29, 03:37 PM
Bah, who cares, I used to dig Greenpeace but they are just rubbish nowadys.
MacsRgr8
Sep 20, 06:10 AM
Maybe the HD has a slimmed down version of Mac OS X installed on it, making it necessary to be in there, and it's very likely for caching purposes too.
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
Wish it did have a DVD-player in it, so that it could replace any ol' DVD player hooked up to the TV aswell. With the iTV you still need one.
That's pretty much what I did with my Mac mini Core Duo.... I have a LCD TV hooked up to the mini via DVI. I use Front Row to watch all my favorite movies I have downladed, and VLC for some HD content. And I use the mini's DVD player for wathcing these. It's great!
bigjohn
May 5, 11:33 AM
Works fine for me here in L.A.
Although I so rarely use voice anymore... I wish there was a 200 minute plan for like $19
Although I so rarely use voice anymore... I wish there was a 200 minute plan for like $19
jeffgarden
Mar 18, 05:04 PM
Sorry, i didn't read every post so this may be repeatative but...
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
If you're going to PAY for music to break drm, just buy it at a store or use Kazaa
OR get napster to go trial, get virtuosa 5.0 to make them mp3's and you're done
why would you pay for something you don't want
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
FloatingBones
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:56 PM
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
emw
Mar 18, 10:16 AM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?Probably before the the end of the day, I would imagine.
But is this really a surprise to anybody? I mean, really, how much can the RIAA bitch about this? They sell CDs that anyone can burn and share - they should be happy that Apple is trying to improve upon this model in the first place. Of course, I know they will still bitch...
But is this really a surprise to anybody? I mean, really, how much can the RIAA bitch about this? They sell CDs that anyone can burn and share - they should be happy that Apple is trying to improve upon this model in the first place. Of course, I know they will still bitch...
Gelfin
Mar 24, 09:56 PM
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
Aside from what Iscariot just wrote, you are ignoring the point.
The problem is believing that certain people are inferior and offensive just by virtue of their existence.
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
The problem is condemning people for that which they did not choose and cannot change about themselves.
But most importantly, the problem is feeling so entitled as to believe that prejudice entails the right to subjugate another person, to deny him the right to live according to his own conscience and best interests and to instead force him to live according to those of someone who despises him.
It is at this last point that that the bigot crosses the line no one is morally obliged to tolerate. It is the firing of the first shot, the first act of antagonism taken against someone who did not initiate a confrontation.
The fact that the Catholic Church does not need the same tactics to pursue such an agenda against homosexuals as the KKK used against black people is not strictly relevant. The immorality of the doctrine of subjugation is the same.
Aside from what Iscariot just wrote, you are ignoring the point.
The problem is believing that certain people are inferior and offensive just by virtue of their existence.
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
The problem is condemning people for that which they did not choose and cannot change about themselves.
But most importantly, the problem is feeling so entitled as to believe that prejudice entails the right to subjugate another person, to deny him the right to live according to his own conscience and best interests and to instead force him to live according to those of someone who despises him.
It is at this last point that that the bigot crosses the line no one is morally obliged to tolerate. It is the firing of the first shot, the first act of antagonism taken against someone who did not initiate a confrontation.
The fact that the Catholic Church does not need the same tactics to pursue such an agenda against homosexuals as the KKK used against black people is not strictly relevant. The immorality of the doctrine of subjugation is the same.
.jpg "Single Pink Rose Wallpaper.")
archipellago
May 2, 04:56 PM
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Its hard to link to conversations.....
Studies on malware are pointless, there is so little effort being put into writing OSX malware, no ROI.
to be honest I didn't think it was a still a live argument (Mac OSX security myths) it certainly isn't in my circles.
bastiangatten
Oct 7, 02:49 PM
Ya if apple didn't further the iPhone OS anymore between now and then maybe. But you know they will come up with something great soon anyways. And I don't think apple is seaking to have the most sold product. They just want to have the best product. Look at the Mac Computer. It isn't the most. It's the best!
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
Only we have some people come on this board who claim that the Mac is much slower. For what purpose?
To show people that Macs are not as fast as Apple claims them to be, and to send Apple a message that they need to get their hardware in gear already. "We" want Apple to succeed as much as you do. What we don't want is for Apple to become complacent, as it has recently, and sell nothing but high-priced boxes full of yesterday's technology. (PC100/133 across the board, and crippled DDR in the Power Macs. No Firewire2, no USB2, no ATA-133. Is this 2002 or is it 1999?)
And Arne, if you are reading these boards, please delete clearly PC biased hate posts ASAP.
Silence your opposition - fabulous.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:40 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
leekohler
Apr 24, 05:20 AM
Come on, Lee, you just enjoy spending your time surrounded by young, fit redheads guys. :)
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :)
It really has meant a lot to me to have 21 year old guys who've played hockey all their lives, look at me and say, "Dude, can't wait- you're gonna be amazing after we teach you." Yes, that means a crapload to me, skunk. It really does.
BTW- I have never gotten laid as a result of the hockey league. I know- horrifying. :)
As sassy as that sounds- I am quite serious. :)
It really has meant a lot to me to have 21 year old guys who've played hockey all their lives, look at me and say, "Dude, can't wait- you're gonna be amazing after we teach you." Yes, that means a crapload to me, skunk. It really does.
BTW- I have never gotten laid as a result of the hockey league. I know- horrifying. :)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 02:51 PM
A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo or of. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican.
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 04:38 PM
Sadly the lack of a system bus faster than 133/167 and use of leading edge RAM technology is a major downside to Mac hardware. G4 with software optomized for it is still on par with P4, but when Altivec is not in the picture or MultiProcessor awareness, the Mac slips very fart behind. I still have faith that the G5 will make up for this gap.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
As for OS X vs Windows 2000, I am not as technically aware as the above poster, however my own experience in a large office environment with heavy networking is that Windows 2000 has failed us. We are switching to Unix and Sun, because we can't afford the down time that windows 2000 is giving us, the cost advantage of windows not withstanding.
I have not come accross many large computer operations people that will tell me that Windows is a replacement for Unix. Not unless dealing with small size and limited budget.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:01 PM
Also, one has to get use to dragging icons from one place to another. I did not do this while using Windows. I am not saying it cannot be done, but I closed or deleted apps with the window. However, it is not necessary to drag icons etc.. One can right click an icon and select the "get info" term from the menu.
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Hmm? I'm not really sure what this means. Can you explain?
When you close a window via the famous "X" to the top left of the window, technically it is not closed, as you must officially close the window from the dock or reopen the window and select "quit 'x' app." Underneath the dock there is a circular light informing you that the app is still open. This experience, while it is petty, has caused slight grief. I was use to the absolutism of closing the program the first time by clicking 'X.'
Wow. I could see this being a pain in the butt when we're used to just clicking on 'Close Window' and we're done.
Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"? (serious question)
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:46 PM
After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?So you didn't know they were going 8-Core next month? It's only gonna be an extra $300 over the price of the 4-Core 3GHz model for the 8-Core 2.66GHz model. If you are into video and especially compression, 8-cores will make a big productivity difference.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:04 PM
So this site is for fanboys only?
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
Fiveos22
Jul 11, 10:53 PM
mmm, AppleInsider vs. Thinksecret
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
