Sydde
Apr 22, 10:25 PM
someone hasn't posted in that thread for 5 months ... why would people all of a sudden want to revive it ... today we have this one.
Because it is the third longest example of drift on PRSI (for now) and since appleguy123 started that one, of course he wants it to continue.
Because it is the third longest example of drift on PRSI (for now) and since appleguy123 started that one, of course he wants it to continue.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
bassfingers
Apr 27, 12:27 AM
So what? So someone had to decide which books belonged in there and which did not. The choice was most certainly partly arbitrary and partly political. I mean, even if you could reasonably claim divine inspiration for the authorship, can you also claim divine guidance for the compilation? Especially considering that various Christian sects cannot agree on even that.
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
superleccy
Sep 20, 07:18 AM
Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
Well, the shape of the USB port suggests that it is for attaching another device to the iTV, and not for attaching the iTV to your Mac.
If the iTV doubles-up as an Airport Express, then maybe the USB port is for attaching a printer.
SL
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:51 PM
i agree with you that pcs are faster and that some mac users will not see the facts today, but what major advantage does the faster pc give to me (the average user with e-mail, internet, office, and sometimes light graphics and digital photos)?
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
but it would be nice for the macs to close the speed gap someday, whether it's done with motorola processors or ibm processors
when i tell die hard mac users that one can do graphic design with pcs, they look at me like i am crazy
but today, in late-2002, it's entirely possible and if a computer user is used to using pcs for office stuff and wants to learn graphic design, it's ok for them to learn on their pc (assuming it's not too old)
only if they insist on a mac should they learn that platform to do most types of graphic design
at one time, the mac was the only real choice
it's kind of like music and rock and roll in the early days of recording that medium...if the bass player wanted to record an electric bass, it was almost always a "fender" inc. bass that was used
even years after bass players started using bass guitars made by other makers, they would still often get credited on the album as having played the fender bass or being the fender bass player
today, of course, a bass player is simply referred to as a bass player and their instrument of choice is as likely to be another make as it is to be a fender instruments electric bass guitar
Max(IT)
Apr 21, 05:33 AM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
Lol ...
Exactly :D
So wait, you don't own a Mac or an iDevice but you post here constantly?
Eheheh, he's not the only one.
There is a specific term to define people like him on a forum ;)
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 06:56 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
nagromme
Oct 7, 02:12 PM
I think point 3 is the biggest problem with the iPhone OS and will be what in the long run what will let others over take it.
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
Heilage
Mar 25, 03:02 PM
Dear The Vatican (att. Pope Benedict XVI aka. Darth Sidious Doppelganger)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
**** you. If you keep on spreading hate throughout the world, I will ride your asses for it every single day.
Sincerely,
Heilage
(And that's all I have to say about that)
blumpy
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:20 PM
Homosexuals have a right to live the same lifestyle as anybody else, under the Constitution and under the UN Declaration.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
Maybe with better furnishings, though...
So skunk is talking about legal rights.
jonnyb
Apr 15, 09:10 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
If they alienate customers who think bullying people into suicidal depression is a good thing, then great.
(L)
May 3, 08:55 PM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
Moron seems rude, but yes, really no Mac user should ever get this wrong.
Really, it's whether you know the difference between an abbreviation and an acronym.
Mac is an abbreviation for Macintosh.
It's not an acronym for Mechanical Apple Computer. :o
Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.
Moron seems rude, but yes, really no Mac user should ever get this wrong.
Really, it's whether you know the difference between an abbreviation and an acronym.
Mac is an abbreviation for Macintosh.
It's not an acronym for Mechanical Apple Computer. :o
Voltes V
Sep 26, 12:53 AM
start savings and look for stuff to sell.
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
What the hell am I going to do with 8 cores??? :-D
you can use it to browse the web.............................and all the things you thought impossible, oooops i got overboard. ;)
SRSound
Sep 26, 12:41 AM
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance! If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
See: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=25349
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:00 PM
if anyone was wondering, Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
Dont you think people can google it for themselves if they feel a need to know?
supmango
Mar 18, 10:48 AM
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
Sydde
Apr 22, 08:50 PM
Atheists often, rightly or wrongly, seem to count agnostics in their number much as Blues is of classified as a part of Jazz (wrongly, IMO).
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
This document from census.gov (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf) looks to me like it is showing a fairly steady increase in unbelief, which can only be a good thing.
On this forum, there only appear to be a lot of atheists because they tend to be outspoken, put forth strong arguments (the strength of which may be a matter of opinion), and respond quickly to religious nonsense.
macfan881
Feb 25, 05:16 PM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Right, Apple lowered the barrier to entry so that people can GET STARTED more quickly.... and all the so-called "professionals" (in their own mind) are now declaring that they have removed all depth from the product, eliminated %90 of the features (based on what? their own ignorance about what was shown?)....
and are insisting that if it is easier to GET STARTED, it therefore cannot have the depth of features to do ADVANCED work.
It is nonsense.
It is the kind of nonsense attitude you see whenever Apple introduces something new.
Hell, people were saying the same stuff about iMovie back in 2006 and they are using the nonsense about iMovie as "evidence" that Apple is "doing it again" with Final Cut!
----
you know what?
Someone is always saying something stupid on the internet.
The sad thing is, the people who don't know any better, they believe these "professionals" and think they are "experts".
You can go into any camera store...
You can go into any bar...
You can go to any gun range...
You can go into any hobby or area of mild technical expertise...
and find self important, experts-in-their-own-mind who are derisive of whatever is new.
Guys who think they seem more macho by denigrating things they don't understand.
These people are not cool.
They are not to be admired.
And they certainly aren't worth taking advice from!
After all, they are the same ones who thought Windows was so much better than Mac OS!
javajedi
Oct 8, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
No comments:
Post a Comment