Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:31 PM
lol ... there are some weird things on the US currency ... what is with the floating eye on top of a Pyramid?
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
relimw
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
Is my 8-core MBP going to be announced tomorrow?!? It's a Tuesday after all!!!
Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Would the XServes not be the ideal choice to get Clovertown initially? I mean, we've already been through how few apps make really good use of all those cores, a server would make more sense.
Ok, now that that's out of the way...
Would the XServes not be the ideal choice to get Clovertown initially? I mean, we've already been through how few apps make really good use of all those cores, a server would make more sense.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 06:56 PM
It's not certain, but It's a damn good bet that it won't record as it doesn't look like it'll have any storage... I wouldn't bet a dime on recording ability...
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
You guys all miss the point. The Desktop is the Media Center! All recording gets done there. It is then served to ANY TV, iPOD, Stereo in the house.
Same way Windows Media and xBox 360 do it, only with a High Def slant.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:04 AM
Before I'd consider suicide on being fat I would first try to loose some weight maybe. I lost 30 kilograms (keeping that weight for some years now) and I am very happy with that. My personal receipt was to distract from eating with wonderful electronic gadgets. I don't need to medicate my diabetes II any more. Just try that. It's possible.
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
But being homosexual seems to be something unchangeable, you can't do anything against that obviously even when you are mentally strong. So there are lots of desperate people. Maybe helful: Imagine (or even better: meet) a person that is jewish, black, gay, fat, small, handicapped and bold altogether. And see how happy this person is maybe or how this person stays alive in our cruel community.
So basically, fat kids deserve to be bullied! Crying themselves to sleep every night is sure to burn extra calories. We should give the bullies a medal for helping reduce our public health care costs.
But hands off the gays!
blackburn
Apr 9, 04:29 PM
Real gamers won't use apple gear (for gaming at least). I don't really like the online game craze. You can't borrow games from friends or even trade them (yeah more profit for the industry).
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
Since my game pc died I've bought an psp to play a few games once in a while, and not an ipod touch since it doesn't have any friggin' buttons in it. And macs just suck too much at gaming (looking at toasty imacs), in here the only thing that keeps kids wanting an iDevice it's because it's cool and having an apple thing means that your either an hipster or an rich (or broke with lots of debts).
Long live the moments of the game boy, hell I still play some game boy games in my psp with an emulator:D
Quobobo
Mar 18, 07:40 PM
Now why do fag hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced". now i simply have to ask the question... if your a hacker.. more than likely you deal with computers. dont you think that your overpaid for you job? for a small simple example.. best buy geek squad.. overpriced.. they want 30+ dollars to install a stick of ram. the point is... the money is for the most part equally distributed to be able to pay these high prices. income is accomidated for the high prices of products. if u think it's bad over here.. go to japan and try and buy a medium fries on their "dollar menu" which in usd=$5. so back my main point... just pay the frick'n money, most ppl's income are accomidated for the increase cost. if you feel u cant afford a cd... that's what christmas or your birthday is for or even the radio. by the way... i'm not an "artist" either... im majoring in ECE myself so i'm not biased.
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
You're majoring at a university? If you're a native speaker of English, you shouldn't have passed high school English with writing skills like that.
All complaints about how painful reading your post is aside, you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with CDs, it's about what people can and can't do with music they paid for. I'd like to be able to play music I download on any computer I own, but DRM files prevent me from doing that. Worse, what's going to happen 10 years from now? If I want to start using something other than iTunes for music, I'll be out of luck.
P.S.
Cost of Medium Fries in Japan (http://www.mcdonalds.co.jp/sales/menu_h_f.html): 252�, about $2.4 USD
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:31 AM
Unix Security FTW
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 10:25 AM
What about this:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
or this:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html
or this:
"Science politicized is science betrayed. Adamant focuses on advances in science and international security, and how the rhetoric of motives distorts them in public television, often thoughtless think tanks, and both sides of the aisle in a Congress where lawyers outnumber scientists 30 to 1.
"It also affords respite from the Science Wars by surveying bizarre things that surface in the 36,000 ostensibly learned journals to which Harvard's library's subscribes." -Physicist Dr. Russell Seitz
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
or this:
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/08/black_hydrogen.html
or this:
"Science politicized is science betrayed. Adamant focuses on advances in science and international security, and how the rhetoric of motives distorts them in public television, often thoughtless think tanks, and both sides of the aisle in a Congress where lawyers outnumber scientists 30 to 1.
"It also affords respite from the Science Wars by surveying bizarre things that surface in the 36,000 ostensibly learned journals to which Harvard's library's subscribes." -Physicist Dr. Russell Seitz
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:48 PM
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
HyperX13
Apr 28, 09:05 PM
Apple is turning it's back on enterprise! But who knows, maybe smart strategy!
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:55 AM
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
pdjudd
Oct 8, 11:30 AM
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
Not alt all. I have yet to say that all. I don;t defend Apple to the death at all.
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
Actually, to a degree it is...
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
Yea, just like Microsoft did... whoops...
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
Thats not how MS got big. Not at all. Look at the real history behind the situation and you learn that after MS was given a major foothold by IBM, they just leveraged one success to another along with enterprises taking the IBM approach that nobody could go wrong with what IBM chose - which was Microsoft. Lots of companies do that even on closed platforms. Heck, look at how successful RIM is and they control the whole widget. Yes they create a lot of handsets. Google creates no handsets - they don't have any control over the final product.
Microsoft taking an open hardware approach has very little to do with their success. Its a side affect. A coincidence. Look at the video game market for further proof. MS doesn't take the desktop approach with the X-box - they parleyed their gaming successes on Windows to ease developers onto a closed hardware device. Nintendo has done that for years with their franchise characters. You cannot get a more closed ecosystem than Video games - and they are continuously successful. Even MS exploits closed ecosystems and they are finally making a profit (they would have earlier if they could have released a hardware system that wasn't so defective).
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Insulting people does not help your case.
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
AppliedVisual
Oct 29, 11:30 AM
i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.
Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
Exactly. Roadmaps are just projections based on what current technology and market trends seem to indicate. Back when Intel and AMD were both deadlocked in the MHz race and were pushing to break the 2GHz barrier, we were hearing claims of 4GHz within a year and 10GHz by '07. Well, '07 is almost here and 4GHz is still just a pipedream in most situations and not something we see without overclocking and aftermarket cooling options. The only thing that we can rely on is that both AMD and Intel have become quite reliable when they officially announce a product is in development and production and they are usually good about when it will arrive and what it will do. Often only missing a release by a matter of a few days to a week or two, even though it was announced nearly 8 months or more in advance. But upcoming products on their roadmap mean little. Nehalem may not even happen... There's been several tentative chip products over the years that appear on a roadmap, only to be replaced by something else later. I think at this point, all those future entries on the roadmap mean is that it's something being investigated. There could be a significant breakthrough tomorrow in nanotech that allows for 28um production industry-wide within the next two years and then you can bet that Intel, AMD and IBM will throw their current roadmaps out the window. So it means nada until they officially start development and testing on a new product...
supmango
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
By the way the supposition as to how they are detecting this is likely way off base....People who think it is not detectable just don't understand how it works/what it is doing at the device level.
Please elaborate.
Please elaborate.
stcanard
Mar 18, 09:27 PM
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.
DRM lock in does not sell iPods.
Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.
Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.
Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.
You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.
If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?
Go back through what I have said. I agree 100%. iTunes and ITMS sell iPods.
DRM lock in does not sell iPods.
Integration and a superior user experience does sell iPods.
Now to the point you apparently missed -- If you look at the number of songs sold compared to the number of iPods sold, do the math and realize that only a fraction of those iPods have ITMS songs on them. Therefore DRM lock in does not enter into it.
Now look at home many people used iTunes to rip their entire music collection. That plus the ease of finding the song you want on the ITMS is what sells them.
You've fallen into the trap the RIAA wants you to. You're working on the assumption that everyone in the world wants to violate copyright to get their music. Once you get out of that mindset and understand that in general people are fair and honest you'll begin to see the point.
If you want, look at it another way. Steve Jobs has said time and again that unbreakable DRM is impossible. Do you really think he would base his company's future on a business model that he openly admits is flawed?
LimeiBook86
Apr 15, 09:14 AM
Pixar did a similar video like this, it was the first one I've seen. Glad to see Apple doing one as well. :) Great idea, very nice! :D
miles01110
May 2, 09:34 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
iMikeT
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
A sneak peak of a rumored product from Apple?:eek:
TheAppleDragon
May 2, 01:34 PM
The article -> http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/02/macdefender-rogue-anti-malware-program-attacks-macs-via-seo-poisoning/
Here is how it works:
Why is everyone acting like this is new?
Malware like this has been around for quite some time. It's always been the same - just exit the stupid installer and absolutely nothing happens.
Now if/when the malware auto-installs, by THEN it will be a threat. So far Apple has been good at patching loopholes, though.
Here is how it works:
Why is everyone acting like this is new?
Malware like this has been around for quite some time. It's always been the same - just exit the stupid installer and absolutely nothing happens.
Now if/when the malware auto-installs, by THEN it will be a threat. So far Apple has been good at patching loopholes, though.
Sounds Good
Apr 14, 07:32 PM
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
nick9191
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
No comments:
Post a Comment