NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:19 PM
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
ReanimationLP
Oct 14, 03:38 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Mademan12321
May 8, 10:53 AM
I've had AT&T/Cingular since 2002/3. I've barely ever had an issue. When I did, it was one month where they did seem to run ******. Then that went away and I've not had an issue again *shrug* (Ok, once at a county fair where probably all the people conglamerated together in an area that usually isn't that populous probably overloaded the towers there. Actually, it turned out it was my iphone had crashed and needed to restart which has happened to me occasionally). I've used my phone in Washington, Georgia, Connecticut, Long Island, and New Jersey.
The only carrier I avoid like the plague is Sprint. And to be fair, maybe they've improved by now (to have still survived I would think so). And it wasn't dropped calls. It was so reliabley bad connection calls I could never understand anyone calling on Sprint. And everyone I knew with Sprint had the same complaints.
MY parents had Sprint and I finally asked them to call me on their landline cause I never could understand the call (and htis was the time Sprint was advertising that you would misunderstand people on other networks. My experience their parody of other networks fit them to a T).
My only thing with Verizon (once again they may have changed by now) is they were significantly more expensive than Cingular or T-Mobile (and Cingular had better coverage than T-Mobile which is why I went with them). Like by 20 dollars a month when I was shopping for plans (this was just regular voice plans). I've been happy enough with Cingular I've never really felt the need to change *shrug*. I probably would not have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (cause I was just browsing phones AT&T had). And now I love the iphone so much AT&T would have to suddenly get really bad or another carrier would have to get really good (or a really enticing phone) to make me want to leave.
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service. I would never in this lifetime go back to Sprint after the harsh treatment of me and my connection problems. They made it seem it wasn't there fault they had crap service here.
The only place in Texas I couldn't get strong coverage is going towards Oklahoma in the boonies. Other than that it's been great when I travel to places like Las Vegas, Louisiana, Florida, and Atlanta. I have never had to dispute my bill or complain about excessive dropped calls.
The only carrier I avoid like the plague is Sprint. And to be fair, maybe they've improved by now (to have still survived I would think so). And it wasn't dropped calls. It was so reliabley bad connection calls I could never understand anyone calling on Sprint. And everyone I knew with Sprint had the same complaints.
MY parents had Sprint and I finally asked them to call me on their landline cause I never could understand the call (and htis was the time Sprint was advertising that you would misunderstand people on other networks. My experience their parody of other networks fit them to a T).
My only thing with Verizon (once again they may have changed by now) is they were significantly more expensive than Cingular or T-Mobile (and Cingular had better coverage than T-Mobile which is why I went with them). Like by 20 dollars a month when I was shopping for plans (this was just regular voice plans). I've been happy enough with Cingular I've never really felt the need to change *shrug*. I probably would not have gotten the iphone if it wasn't on AT&T (cause I was just browsing phones AT&T had). And now I love the iphone so much AT&T would have to suddenly get really bad or another carrier would have to get really good (or a really enticing phone) to make me want to leave.
Sounds exactly like my story. I liked Verizon, but couldn't justify another 45 bucks extra for service. I would never in this lifetime go back to Sprint after the harsh treatment of me and my connection problems. They made it seem it wasn't there fault they had crap service here.
The only place in Texas I couldn't get strong coverage is going towards Oklahoma in the boonies. Other than that it's been great when I travel to places like Las Vegas, Louisiana, Florida, and Atlanta. I have never had to dispute my bill or complain about excessive dropped calls.
deannnnn
May 5, 01:06 PM
Check out this poll that was on Facebook today!
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
theheadguy
Aug 29, 02:21 PM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
Obviously, they aren't.
They don't even release timelines for many things while other companies do. Apple can defend itself, they don't need you or anyone else to stick up for it when you aren't informed on what they are doing. Just as people complain that Greenpeace doesn't know what they are talking about, many people defending Apple are totally clueless also. It's just important to know that if you really care about the situation. :rolleyes:
SRSound
Oct 31, 12:46 PM
Nothing will be better for complex music work than an 8-core Mac Pro. I admire your courage to realize the 4-core Mac Pro was more of a stop gap model than what the market needs longer term.
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
Can you elaborate on that? I have a pending Mac Pro purchase for my recording studio, based on Pro Tools, and I can't decide if I would benefit from the additional cores. I know Pro Tools can't utilize more then 2 at a time, but I'm wondering if all the additional processing (virtual effects, instruments, etc) would get a boost...
springerj
Apr 20, 07:58 PM
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
It's really cool when you over-clock it and put in a terabyte drive!!! Real phone users can do that!
It's really cool when you over-clock it and put in a terabyte drive!!! Real phone users can do that!
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:20 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
www.elgato.com (http://www.elgato.com/)
Of course, the downside of this is if your "den" or wherever you keep your Mac doesn't have a cable/ariel/satellite socket in the wall. I actually run my EyeTV 410 off a cheap indoor antenna for this reason. Looks ugly but works fine.
www.elgato.com (http://www.elgato.com/)
Of course, the downside of this is if your "den" or wherever you keep your Mac doesn't have a cable/ariel/satellite socket in the wall. I actually run my EyeTV 410 off a cheap indoor antenna for this reason. Looks ugly but works fine.
usasalazar
Sep 26, 09:28 PM
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060926corp.htm
sawah
Mar 18, 08:55 AM
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 AM
Tampering with the text is not, per se, the real issue. What Huntn us probably referring to is the selective composition of the whole. The Protestant bible typically has 66 books. Some other versions can have as many as 81
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
I'm aware of ancient disputes about what books belong in the Bible. Eusebius describes some in his Ecclesiastical History But one this is plain to me: The Third Council of Carthage's canon included the titles of the Old Testament books that Protestants call the "Apocrypha." If you look in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, you'll see them in it.
Here's the Third Council of Carthage's canon (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html). Meanwhile, I need to read the documents Sydde suggests. By the way, if you read the Historical Introduction to the Council of Ephesus, a council that met in 431 A.D., you'll know that council believed it taught infallibly. That council's belief is relevant because the Carthage council met in 397 A.D., only about 35 years before the Ephesene council and because the Ephesene council's Fathers would have thought the ancient Church had the authority to determine infallibly what books were canonical. Here's a like to the documents the Council of Ephesus wrote (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ephesus.html).
Eso
Mar 18, 10:04 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
You misunderstand the role of the courts. The court does not enforce contracts. Instead, their role is to determine the validity of said contract. Both sides may argue as to why the terms of the contract are justified or not, and the court will rule in favor of one or the other. The court will either uphold the terms of the contract or declare them to be invalid.
tigress666
Apr 10, 01:08 PM
Honestly, I think what will be a major deciding factor on how well the iphone/android does against dedicated handhelds is how many developers decide to also put their games on the iphone/android as well as how many very good and unique to the handheld game the handhelds get (basically can these people deciding if they are also going to buy a handheld on top of their smartphone still play the games they want on their smartphone even if it isn't as good as an experience on the hand held? I think many people might decide it's not worth buying that extra handheld long as they can get the games they want to play on the device they already have. And that there aren't games that entice them to get the handheld that they can't get on their smartphone).
I don't think a 3D screen is going to make a big difference more than just game availability (for example the 3d screen is neat to look at, but I wouldn't buy the 3Ds for that. I'm more likely to be enticed by the new Sony hand held coming out as I suspect it more likely will attract the games I want to play. So far I'm less than impressed with the games out on the 3Ds. And I know I"m very disappointed in the type of games Nintendo tends to attract. My mom gave me her wii and I still haven't found a game I want to buy for it :( ). I think having some really good games that you can't get on the smartphones will be what convinces people that it is worth it to buy that extra device.
But in the end, when talking about gaming systems, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the most important deciding factor is games available. You could have the best hardware in the world, the best designed controller, the prettiest screen, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if you can't attract a good amount of *good* games.
I don't think a 3D screen is going to make a big difference more than just game availability (for example the 3d screen is neat to look at, but I wouldn't buy the 3Ds for that. I'm more likely to be enticed by the new Sony hand held coming out as I suspect it more likely will attract the games I want to play. So far I'm less than impressed with the games out on the 3Ds. And I know I"m very disappointed in the type of games Nintendo tends to attract. My mom gave me her wii and I still haven't found a game I want to buy for it :( ). I think having some really good games that you can't get on the smartphones will be what convinces people that it is worth it to buy that extra device.
But in the end, when talking about gaming systems, it doesn't matter how good your hardware is, the most important deciding factor is games available. You could have the best hardware in the world, the best designed controller, the prettiest screen, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if you can't attract a good amount of *good* games.
tf23
Sep 12, 08:14 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
A tv-tuner/encoding chip on the thing would a) raise the price and b) be counter-productive for them to *sell* content through iTunes. So they won't do it.
But the eyeTV et all 3rd party makers have just got to be drooling over this 'iTV'. If there's enough processor power in the thing to play full HD out w/ full dolby audio, then it's only a matter of time (or imcremental upgrades) to 3rd party add-ons that could possibly let the 'iTV' grab content and store it locally on itself.
I for one hope the iTV can mount NFS shares and look for media files. If not NFS, smb could work, too.
A tv-tuner/encoding chip on the thing would a) raise the price and b) be counter-productive for them to *sell* content through iTunes. So they won't do it.
But the eyeTV et all 3rd party makers have just got to be drooling over this 'iTV'. If there's enough processor power in the thing to play full HD out w/ full dolby audio, then it's only a matter of time (or imcremental upgrades) to 3rd party add-ons that could possibly let the 'iTV' grab content and store it locally on itself.
I for one hope the iTV can mount NFS shares and look for media files. If not NFS, smb could work, too.
awmazz
Mar 12, 04:16 AM
Why is this Chernobyl?
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
And inversely, you're way too calm with zero information. Or too trusting. I'll tell you exactly what the similarity is with Chernobyl. Being told by 'experts' that it's safe, nothing to worry about.
History says I'll turn out to be right and you wrong.
So if I'm a fool by buying into the 'huge explosion' headline and footage, what are you? Denying there was any explosion at all? This goes back to my first point, I see a huge explosion at a nuclear power plant with my own eyes on my TV screen and the steel skeleton of the girders all that's remaining of the building, and yet here you are an 'expert' claiming there's no problem because I have zero information? WTF?
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Building #4 is apparently totally destroyed by the looks of it, just the skeletal steel structure left standing. Some reports are saying it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded. The question then is why did any hydrogen tanks explode at all? Because they were depressed and suicidal? Or because some really bad sh** going down in a freaking nuclear power plant made them explode? But according to puma1552 it's nothing to worry about and don't believe your lying eyes because you don't know what rad levels are.. ;)
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
And inversely, you're way too calm with zero information. Or too trusting. I'll tell you exactly what the similarity is with Chernobyl. Being told by 'experts' that it's safe, nothing to worry about.
History says I'll turn out to be right and you wrong.
So if I'm a fool by buying into the 'huge explosion' headline and footage, what are you? Denying there was any explosion at all? This goes back to my first point, I see a huge explosion at a nuclear power plant with my own eyes on my TV screen and the steel skeleton of the girders all that's remaining of the building, and yet here you are an 'expert' claiming there's no problem because I have zero information? WTF?
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Building #4 is apparently totally destroyed by the looks of it, just the skeletal steel structure left standing. Some reports are saying it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded. The question then is why did any hydrogen tanks explode at all? Because they were depressed and suicidal? Or because some really bad sh** going down in a freaking nuclear power plant made them explode? But according to puma1552 it's nothing to worry about and don't believe your lying eyes because you don't know what rad levels are.. ;)
joeboy_45101
Aug 29, 01:00 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.
Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
I agree. Trust me I am no fan of GreenPeace's tactics, but what benefit does GreenPeace get out of making this report? And why do so many conservatives like to say that the enviromentalists' are just making this stuff up to get money. ENVIROMENTALISTS' DON'T MAKE SH#$ FOR MONEY! Now, if you think about Big Oil or Chinese sweatshops they've got every reason to say this stuff is untrue because they could lose a lot of money from it.
Oh, and for all the people that make the claim, "destroying the environment is neccessary to keep business profitable", maybe we can go fishing in the Aral Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea) sometime and work our differences out. Oh wait we can't!
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
mi5moav
Jul 12, 07:29 AM
Hmmm, I hope they change the moniker XEON just brings up old conotations. Though I hope the Xserve waits for Kentsfield or at least for SOSSA MAN.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:39 AM
I am one of the many people carrying them, but, sales numbers of those versus the iPod Touch, and iPhone are telling us that the fad is over. ;)
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
I don't want them to stop selling classic iPods, however I am not blind to the fact that I am a member of a dying breed of classic iPod users. :(
Oh yeah, it's definitely trending downward now instead of still climbing, but it took almost a decade before that happened, not 3 or 4 years as claimed earlier. And they still sell millions every year, which you cannot say about pet rocks. That's the difference between a fad and a popular product. In a fad, the sales dry up quickly.
dejo
Oct 7, 11:55 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:12 AM
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still think gay people need to refrain from gay sex.
UnixMac
Oct 10, 06:34 PM
my 500mhz MP did it in 87 seconds.
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
