Apple OC
Mar 15, 11:27 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:13 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
Please excuse me if I am missing something totally obvious here as I am a relatively new convert to Apple.
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
This looks like a nice little solution but I am not sure its anything revoloutionary. I currently have an airport express in the bedroom connected to an eyehome unit that does the same job as far as i can see.
Granted it cannot handle Purchased itunes songs ( which i can stream out of the airport directly though) and I guess therfore wont play itunes movies - but that is an apple restriction on ElGato.
As far as TV goes though, this setup with an EyeTV 200 attached to the computer is effectively the Tivo Killer I keep hearing talk of - I certainly chose this route after discovering that the tivo lifetime licenses were not available any more and not wanting another bill every month.
The apple box also would not work for me (as far as I could see) as I use a regular old TV in the bedroom without component inputs - just rca and s video.
Plus I get the benefit of the airport express extending my wireless network into the bedroom so laptop access is great throughout the house now.
Seems that downloaded movies arent going to be big in this house if i need to replace current hardware with something so similar that wont drive my TV (and who knows if it will pick up eyeTV programs either ) just to watch the purchased movies.
So can someone enlighten me what was so different about the Eyehome and airport express combo that makes this new box so great ? ( I am really open to being convinced - dont usually have a problem talking myself ito new toys)
Current setup Will be even better when this 700 G4 gets replaced by the new 24" imac arriving Friday ....... wasnt supposed to ship until the 18th !!!! Im Stoked
Drew
MacBacker
Mar 18, 04:17 AM
This is why I bought the Nexus One.
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
No, you can have a separate data plan for family plans. I have what you are going to sign up for plus another 2 lines and all our data plans are different.
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
No, you can have a separate data plan for family plans. I have what you are going to sign up for plus another 2 lines and all our data plans are different.
Oneand0
Jun 24, 02:48 AM
Do a lot of travel around the U.S., about 25 trips a year. I have a Verizon phone with the US GOVT. and my cool Iphone. Let's just say that with every four or five dropped calls on Iphone, I get maybe 1 on the Verizon overall. Recently dropped a friend four times in a row using IPHONE at home, and I have no landline phone. As much as I like Apple and the Iphone, this DROID X is too beautiful of a screen for me to avoid July 15th, since I watch so many movies during travel on my iphone, not to mention the better service with Verizon.
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Iphone it was nice knowing Ya!
I am going to keep my macbook pro and Hackintosh beast at home though! :)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 06:46 PM
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless. But I figured out what it meant. So it wasn't meaningless.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
Something about what?
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless. But I figured out what it meant. So it wasn't meaningless.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
Something about what?
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.
firestarter
Apr 24, 11:12 AM
Don't forget it's thought the Caliph Umar ordered the burning of the Library at Alexandria. He's quoted as saying: "�If the books agree with the Qur�an, they are superfluous. If they disagree with it, they are heretical.�
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin, remember, that great 7th Day Adventist conueror of the Middle-East) used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin, remember, that great 7th Day Adventist conueror of the Middle-East) used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 18, 08:47 AM
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
No, because that is clearly retarded.
No, because that is clearly retarded.
Benjy91
May 2, 10:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Most Malware requires direct user intervention, people are idiots.
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Most Malware requires direct user intervention, people are idiots.
Young Spade
Apr 25, 08:01 PM
I found it easy to move to Mac. I picked it up very quickly. I guess I just thought in terms of what I wanted to do in English and then searched the internets/mac for the command.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
I completely agree. What I don't like though is the ability to customize the top organizational bars (unless you can? If so let me know lol) such as being limited to the name, size, kind, and date modified. I would love to change those.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
AidenShaw
Sep 29, 07:34 AM
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
But the wrong answer, unfortunately.
MacsAttack's post about slightly higher latency as you add FB-DIMMs is correct.
One FB-DIMM per channel is fastest, two per channel is slower, three per channel is even slower, and four per channel is slowest. The FB-DIMMs on a chain are in kind of a daisy-chain.
The effect is small, as MacsAttack notes, and not important most of the time. You need a carefully crafted memory benchmark to see the effect clearly.
But the wrong answer, unfortunately.
MacsAttack's post about slightly higher latency as you add FB-DIMMs is correct.
One FB-DIMM per channel is fastest, two per channel is slower, three per channel is even slower, and four per channel is slowest. The FB-DIMMs on a chain are in kind of a daisy-chain.
The effect is small, as MacsAttack notes, and not important most of the time. You need a carefully crafted memory benchmark to see the effect clearly.
Multimedia
Oct 2, 06:07 PM
Since the 2.33GHz Clovertown processors are priced the same as the 3GHz Woodcrests - $851, I think it's fair to say the current 3GHz Quad Core Mac Pro costs about $825 per core while the 8-core 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pros will cost only about $412.50 per core. That looks like real progress to me. On the GHz front, the current one running @ 12GHz is about $275 per GHz of power while the 8-core running @ 18.64GHz is about $177 per GHz of power. That looks like real progress as well. :)
iBug2
Apr 20, 08:16 PM
unless you really really want widgets and Flash, otherwise I can't think of anything better on Android.
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
True, I forgot about gas mileage totally. :) And the hell with Flash on a phone, even if my phone opened flash, I'd disable it :)
Btw: my Prius gets much better gas mileage than a Ferrari. :)
True, I forgot about gas mileage totally. :) And the hell with Flash on a phone, even if my phone opened flash, I'd disable it :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 16, 01:48 PM
The things we hope are reality and things that actually are reality often times greatly differ. People sing the praises of wind and solar, but the honest to God truth is that they can't compete. Not even close.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable energy reserves are accurate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Let the free market determine which technologies win. Stop wasting our money on advancing idiotic technologies which haven't been able to prove themselves after 20+ years of subsidies. If there's wealth to be earned by developing such a technology, it will be developed.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
I'm not arguing for MORE oil production necessarily, I'm arguing for government to stay out of the freaking way and allow the free market to determine what we want/need more of.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
justflie
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
Ok, so my comment about what don't people understand about unlimited was super snarky. Sorry.
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
javajedi
Oct 9, 09:34 PM
Alex, thank you for setting the record straight. I am so sick and tired of hearing the over and over highly fallacious arguments. In many ways these ppl are worse than Windows bigots. They *think* they are educated but aren't; at least Windows bigots don't pretend.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
I can personally vouch for the miserable performance on double-precision floating point: The Java test I made is a simple timing comparison of a double-loop of 200,000,000 type double fp ops (multiply,square root, and addition).
Lower scores are better:
G4 800: 104251
P4 2.6: 5890
*VIA C3 Ezra: 103043
Incidentally I ran the test on my linux "cube" box. Actually more of a rectangle- but hey? :) Looks like this http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/shuttle-sv24/index.x?pg=1
Anyways, I put in a VIA C3 processor. 800 mhz, runs very cool, no fan required. The chip is extremely reasonable.. I paid $29 for it 3 months ago. In my benchmark this low end, elcheapo $29 chip outperformed/equaled my $3500 PowerBook.
Jesus Jumping Christ ppl.. wake up and listen to what alex is saying; he is *NOT* arbitrarily pulling this out of his ass.
You may hear a bunch of flames from others, but not me. I for one (and many others on this board) thank you for taking the time. Regardless though, no matter what, there will always be those individuals that will not listen to logic and reason. Instead they will dismiss the truth along with anyone and everything as being �PC biased�. People need to stop treating this like religion and start being real.
bentmywookie
Mar 18, 03:44 PM
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
Well put - I can't believe some people actually wrote "hopefully Apple will fix/shut this down soon" - do you enjoy having usage of your music crippled? I certainly don't.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
Well put - I can't believe some people actually wrote "hopefully Apple will fix/shut this down soon" - do you enjoy having usage of your music crippled? I certainly don't.
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.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 08:24 PM
If I said that I don't want blacks to be married, because it hurts the sacrament of marriage, would that be hate? I think that it would be.
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
I didn't realize that there was black behavior
While one can't change their orientation one does chose their actions.
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
Like it or not, the zeitgeist is shifting to make homophobia as stigmatized as racism. The Catholic Church will have to either adapt, or perish.
I didn't realize that the Catholic Church had an irrational fear of homosexuals. Since the Catholic Church has an irrational fear of homosexuals could you please help me figure out the growing outreach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_International) to homosexuals?
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
I didn't realize that there was black behavior
While one can't change their orientation one does chose their actions.
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Could you cite examples of mainline Catholicism lynching homosexuals, burning cross on their lawns, bombing their houses etc?
phalseHUD
Apr 21, 04:38 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
I've browsed these forums for a while and used to post under a different name until I started work for a certain company which shall remain nameless! But this has to be one of the most pathetic comments I've ever read on here.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
I've browsed these forums for a while and used to post under a different name until I started work for a certain company which shall remain nameless! But this has to be one of the most pathetic comments I've ever read on here.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 12:25 PM
Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
And if the sea water doesn't reach the bottom of the reactor vessel, well, gravity will cause the bottom to drop out, IF there is sufficient heat to melt the stainless steel.
And if the sea water doesn't reach the bottom of the reactor vessel, well, gravity will cause the bottom to drop out, IF there is sufficient heat to melt the stainless steel.
No comments:
Post a Comment