Mike Teezie
Sep 20, 10:26 AM
I'm buying this thing the day it drops.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
puuukeey
Aug 29, 04:13 PM
Branding != values
Zen packaging != Green company
Artsy propaganda != artist friendly
people in black turtle neck != leftist zen hipsters
This being said. computers are not the biggest ewaist problem. We should be scared of CDs. the very definition of a good CD is the opposite of biodegradable.
Zen packaging != Green company
Artsy propaganda != artist friendly
people in black turtle neck != leftist zen hipsters
This being said. computers are not the biggest ewaist problem. We should be scared of CDs. the very definition of a good CD is the opposite of biodegradable.
ct2k7
Mar 11, 04:43 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
Looking hairier by the minute. :eek:
**** :eek:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 09:47 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:10 PM
Matthew 5:18-19
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Mark 7:9-13
Luke 16:17
Also, I love the use of the term "true Christian". It's perfect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
citi
Apr 15, 01:03 PM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
arkitect
Apr 15, 11:52 AM
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
Not so much hate as intolerance.
Since you insist on not telling the whole story I'll then do it for you.
The CCC (CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH):
Your quote (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397686&postcount=184) above from paragraph 2358 is bracketed by:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If the Catholic Church was truly accepting, please tell why only homosexuals are called to chastity?
I am genuinely interested to hear.
Longey Nowze
May 5, 08:25 PM
I don't think it's an iPhone problem, I live outside the US and I have never had a dropped call. I have also used the iPhone in various countries including the US in Boston to be exact and I experienced no problems.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
KnightWRX
Apr 9, 06:32 AM
This comes at the same time that the Guardian reports that a Admob survey shows interesting results as far as tablet use :
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
Research finds that 84% of tablet owners are playing games (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2011/apr/08/tablets-mainly-for-games-survey)
Was Steve wrong about tablets afterall ? They aren't the cars while the laptops/desktops are the trucks, tablets are the ATVs and motorcycle and laptops/desktops remain entrenched as the daily commuters...
Is the tablet replacing the traditional portable gaming system like the Nintendo DS, PSP more than it is the PC ?
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
Photics
Apr 9, 11:39 AM
Heh, we were having a great discussion, but it seems that the thread exploded. :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
That's not what he's saying. The premise being presented is adapt/evolve or face the consequences of a rapid moving technological world. Doesn't mean the company goes out of business.
Good, someone understands my point :)
joueboy
Apr 9, 12:14 AM
Just like everybody else!
skunk
Mar 27, 07:46 PM
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.I do not hate you in the least, but I do recognise hateful, dogmatic propaganda when I see it.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:06 PM
He just wants to play his music on Linux, is there something wrong with that?Yes.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
I really don't think that it would be terribly difficult to port iTunes or Quicktime to Linux.Probably not, but are you going to whip out a check to pay for it? Software delevelopment is not free.
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:25 PM
Trying to use a finger controlled touch screen as the new answer to everything, and young people thinking this is right, in a way reminds me of being at work.
No one is saying it is best for everything.
What I am saying is that while it may not be as good as actual buttons, it is still fun even with the virtual joysticks. And honestly, when we're talking handheld games, you already are compromising ease of control for that portability. I've never had a handheld game system that was as ergonomic as a dedicated controller on a console system.
You make compromises for that portability (smaller screen, not as powerful hardware, form of the controller is dictated by the fact it has to accommodate a screen). Of the things I listed right there, the hardware is the one most likely that they can maybe stop compromising on but the other stuff is going to get sacrificed for having a small, all in one, handheld system.
Look, I know what you are saying. I completely agree (I use the same argument why a touchscreen keyboard will not replace an actual physical keyboard. Just cause it is newer tech does not make it better).
But what some of us are saying is that for the advantages (Some of which really have nothing to do with the touchscreen really, like the cheap prices of games on the iphone), the compromise is worth it. I have played games that I will fully agree buttons would be better. But for the fact that I have these games on my iphone that is with me everywhere and is more portable than any of the handhelds I've seen and are cheaper plus I don't have to take a whole bunch of cartridges to have all my games with me, the compromise is worth it. And the virtual joystick and buttons don't ruin my enjoyment of the game (but I agree buttons would make it better).
No one is saying it is best for everything.
What I am saying is that while it may not be as good as actual buttons, it is still fun even with the virtual joysticks. And honestly, when we're talking handheld games, you already are compromising ease of control for that portability. I've never had a handheld game system that was as ergonomic as a dedicated controller on a console system.
You make compromises for that portability (smaller screen, not as powerful hardware, form of the controller is dictated by the fact it has to accommodate a screen). Of the things I listed right there, the hardware is the one most likely that they can maybe stop compromising on but the other stuff is going to get sacrificed for having a small, all in one, handheld system.
Look, I know what you are saying. I completely agree (I use the same argument why a touchscreen keyboard will not replace an actual physical keyboard. Just cause it is newer tech does not make it better).
But what some of us are saying is that for the advantages (Some of which really have nothing to do with the touchscreen really, like the cheap prices of games on the iphone), the compromise is worth it. I have played games that I will fully agree buttons would be better. But for the fact that I have these games on my iphone that is with me everywhere and is more portable than any of the handhelds I've seen and are cheaper plus I don't have to take a whole bunch of cartridges to have all my games with me, the compromise is worth it. And the virtual joystick and buttons don't ruin my enjoyment of the game (but I agree buttons would make it better).
R.Perez
Apr 15, 01:05 PM
LGBTQ teens are at the highest risk factor for suicide among ANY of their peers. That is why videos like this are more important than say "fat bullying."
citizenzen
Mar 27, 07:37 PM
What does "anti-gay" mean?
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
For instance, a sex-change doctor/therapist wouldn't care if he's treating a man who wants to change into a woman or a woman who wants to change into a man. They're just there to facilitate whatever change the patient seeks to make.
I doubt your doctor would ever consent to changing the orientation of a straight person to gay, because he's not interested in facilitating his patient's needs, he's really only interested in forwarding his own (anti-gay) agenda.
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
For instance, a sex-change doctor/therapist wouldn't care if he's treating a man who wants to change into a woman or a woman who wants to change into a man. They're just there to facilitate whatever change the patient seeks to make.
I doubt your doctor would ever consent to changing the orientation of a straight person to gay, because he's not interested in facilitating his patient's needs, he's really only interested in forwarding his own (anti-gay) agenda.
killr_b
Oct 25, 11:49 PM
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 10:42 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
balamw
Apr 6, 03:21 PM
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 12:33 PM
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
latergator116
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with making copies of a song from a CD I bought. Also, I see nothing moraly wrong with downloading songs just to get a taste of an album, because I usually end up purchasing the whole think later on.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Christianity, especially Catholicism has it's own colorful (blood red) history.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment