leekohler
Mar 25, 02:47 PM
Again, I could care less what they say.
Why would you not care? Regardless of what you may think, the reality is that what they say encourages others to act, whether those people are Catholic or otherwise. Because it's a major religion, it gives a lot of people encouragement and an excuse to act.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Again, why do you think the extremist minorities do what they do? Where do you think the encouragement comes from? Gelfin just explained this to you and you completely ignored it.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
You have to register. If you don't register, you don't vote. What's the difference between that and a license? And again, marriage is a right, as has been pointed out clearly in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
Why would you not care? Regardless of what you may think, the reality is that what they say encourages others to act, whether those people are Catholic or otherwise. Because it's a major religion, it gives a lot of people encouragement and an excuse to act.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Again, why do you think the extremist minorities do what they do? Where do you think the encouragement comes from? Gelfin just explained this to you and you completely ignored it.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
You have to register. If you don't register, you don't vote. What's the difference between that and a license? And again, marriage is a right, as has been pointed out clearly in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 25, 11:46 PM
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
That is only if they choose to be Catholic (or other manmade religion with such beliefs). Otherwise, they aren't called to chastity.
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
D4F
Apr 28, 08:50 AM
It doesn't take a smart person to prune information out to support their claim, while redacting information which doesn't. Why didn't you include the full spec?
"Weta Digital uses HP’s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
And your point is?
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
*I'll add a hint just to make sure... Try connecting 4K PCs with eachother that are setup to perform one task (rendering station- aka render farms) that usually run for weeks/months at 100%. Go read about it. Doesn't hurt especially if you comment on it.
"Weta Digital uses HP’s BladeSystem c7000 chassis with BL2x220 server modules, with redundant HP Virtual Connect networking modules, full HP redundant thermal logic power supplies and fans, redundant management modules, each server had two Intel L5335 50w processors, 24GB memory and a mixture of 60GB and 120GB hard disk drives."
Most definitely NOT PCs. Sorry, try again.
And your point is?
I use dual Xeon setup at home on my desktop. Since it's a server chip does that mean what I have there is not a PC??
What's wrong with you people lol
It's all about what you can afford and what you use. It's still a PC dude. Some better some worse.
And to add more, do you know why they use specific thermal logic power supplies, management modules and etc? Find out and then post please.
*I'll add a hint just to make sure... Try connecting 4K PCs with eachother that are setup to perform one task (rendering station- aka render farms) that usually run for weeks/months at 100%. Go read about it. Doesn't hurt especially if you comment on it.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 10:59 PM
I see you still haven't explained what you meant by "contained".
If I had the answer as to how this was going to be contained ... I would be over there "containing it"
I just saw a disturbing press conference from the Japanese Government where they released a brief statement that all the workers have suspended work at the 6 reactors.
myself ... I am glued to this story and am sure that even if it takes the International Community to "contain, repair, or stop" this disaster ... that will be done. The world is not just going to let this "Air itself out"
Have I defined "contain" to your satisfaction?
If I had the answer as to how this was going to be contained ... I would be over there "containing it"
I just saw a disturbing press conference from the Japanese Government where they released a brief statement that all the workers have suspended work at the 6 reactors.
myself ... I am glued to this story and am sure that even if it takes the International Community to "contain, repair, or stop" this disaster ... that will be done. The world is not just going to let this "Air itself out"
Have I defined "contain" to your satisfaction?
jamespa66
Mar 18, 09:33 AM
They can detect in a lot of way, for instance since you can't use flash on an iphone or iPad, if they see lots of flash stuff they you are probably tethering, also certain popular sites detect mobile devices and send the mobile version of the site if you are loading the full versions of those sites they could detect tethering, these are only a couple of simple things but there are plenty more, so I don't think this is going to be limited to the latest iOS.
Just my thought on the matter.
Easiest way is for them to sniff the network traffic and look at the packets, the origination machines MAC address is listed. If the MAC address is not in the Apple iPhone list of MAC addresses then it is obviously coming from a tethered machine.
Just my thought on the matter.
Easiest way is for them to sniff the network traffic and look at the packets, the origination machines MAC address is listed. If the MAC address is not in the Apple iPhone list of MAC addresses then it is obviously coming from a tethered machine.
JackAxe
Sep 26, 05:31 PM
I didn't know the Renderman Maya plug-in was not mult-threaded. I was thinking of getting it, are you saying it's only a one cpu renderer?
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
Yep. :( I know of a peep on the OS X Maya forum that ended up buying the full version. I don't have the money for that sort of thing, so I'm not going to buy until the RenderMan Plug-in supports whatever 64-bit version of Maya is released in the future. Then I'll also be upgrading Maya. :)
***
You can download the eval copy to try it out.
<]=)
G58
Oct 18, 07:56 AM
If I thought it was Relevant to mention the people, I would have.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.Right. According to Apple's current pricing, the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown would be +$800 IF they offer it. However, Apple may only offer the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown for + $1100 and keep the rest of the offerings priced as they are now.
That way they keep the top 8-core more expensive than any of the less expensive and way less powerful 4-core models. From a marketing point of view this makes a lot more sense to me - since I plan on buying the Dual 2.66GHz Clovertown for +$1100, total $3599 BASE or more if they insist. This is one time when I don't care how much it costs - I need it NOW.
Demoman
Jul 13, 12:59 AM
Please don't confuse SMP with multi-socket. You must have an SMP (or even an ASMP) operating system to use any computer with more than one core.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
It doesn't matter if the two cores are in one socket or two - both require SMP in order to manage the cores.
Saying that a dual-socket system is "SMP" and a single-socket dual-core system is "not SMP" shows that you don't quite understand the computer technology required to do multi-processing.
I know what Symetrical Multi-Processing is. Thanks.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
chabig
Sep 25, 08:44 AM
Considering all the posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe that the "hard drive" might just be some flash memory.Interesting idea, but I have to disagree. Given the amount of storage video takes, there is no way Apple could sell a device with enough flash memory for $299. A hard drive is much more likely.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 03:25 PM
That's kind of my point - the UK committed (or was committed) to unrealistic goals and will fail to meet them. Anyone can commit to anything - actually delivering on those commitments is completely different
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
Well that's more to do with Blair being uninformed and making decisions because he likes to sound better than he is. If Blair hadn't been a pillock and stuck to the realistic, achievable timeline that everyone else stuck to, then it would have been achievable. Why he said we'd double those targets is beyond most people except the monkey labour spin doctor that suggested it.
What the Greenpeace report is saying, is that Apple don't even have a strategy (timeline) for restricting material use (bar legal restrictions) and that is a black mark for the company when compared to a company that does. it's doing what it has to do, not what it should be doing if it wants to be considered the best. Dell is similar to this but is further along.
This is also related to Apple's almost nazi-like paranoia about secrecy which is harming its reputation on several fronts.
As has already been asked on this thread, why couldn't Apple release details of all the materials is uses or equivalent detail to other manufacturers? Why couldn't it be pro-active and understand the impact it could have (like putting it up at the top of this report)? perhaps because it's not actually as all conquering/superior and clever as it likes people to think?
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.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 12:50 PM
I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
skunk
Mar 26, 07:14 PM
I guess I need a better dictionary
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).Ego te absolvo, fili mi.
Fili mi is the vocative of filius meus, in case you were wondering...
Apologies for the horrible Latin, the only non-English language I am fluent in is Mandarin Chinese (specifically the Beijing dialect).Ego te absolvo, fili mi.
Fili mi is the vocative of filius meus, in case you were wondering...
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:15 AM
Or, perhaps it's that "fat kids" have not been discriminated against, been denied basic human rights, and been subjected to the worst types of inhuman hatred and violence, simply for being who they are.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
That's not to say that bullying isn't an issue, per se. It is; full stop.
But to equate the bullying that "fat kids" experience (which, again, is real) to the utter fear for ones life that goes through the minds of every LGBT kid is to miss the point entirely.
Some groups actually do deserve to be treated differently than others.
Absolutely ridiculous. Fat kids DO commit suicide, by the way. A lot of kids do. But these days it doesn't get in the news because it isn't sexy.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 01:50 AM
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
thogs_cave
Jul 12, 11:53 AM
your all looking at the server specs which have no need for more than 8x pci-e, if that.
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
Actually, I was just reading a bit on PCI-E, and apparently even the beefy dual-card (SLI) GFX don't saturate a pair of 8x slots. Quad SLI might need 16x, but for one or even two cards the boost from 8x to 16x is pretty much a wash.
(And this was from a PeeCee magazine!)
bluap84
Mar 11, 08:51 AM
This is just crazy. They quoted a girl on cnn from their facebook comments saying the failnami was a big letdown. What a gigantic "tw*t".
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
+1
didnt know the word tw@t was used over the pond... lol amezzin
Xeperu
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
The deal with religious people is to ignore them if you disagree.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
albinogoldfish
Mar 18, 03:10 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
Post Title → c.ronaldo real madrid wallpapers 2011
