NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:52 PM
I'll make it a point to better prioritize my time around your personal attacks; I'd hate for you to hurt yourself on that mouthful of faux-indignation.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
Hey, I was just commenting on the irony of your statement and request.
As they say; 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
If that's indigent; oh well.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
linuxcooldude
Apr 13, 02:09 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 01:16 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.
From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,
Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.
So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?
It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
While I have no information regarding Greenpeace having a grudge against Apple, I would be interested in knowing how Dell managed a higher ranking.
From an outsiders view, I can't really see the difference, envronmentally speaking. I mean,
Apple computers aren't significantly less efficient than Dell computers. I can't image Dell computers being constructed with significantly different materials than Apple.
Both Apple and Dell use the same defective Sony batteries, etc. etc.
So why is Dell near the top and Apple near the bottom?
It sort of does lean one to speculate that maybe someone in Greenpeace is pissed-off at Apple for popularizing the mp3 player and creating even more landfill havoc.
handsome pete
Apr 12, 11:05 PM
Obviously I know a lot more about it than you. Of course, there are multiple industries that use editing software... but that doesn't matter. You're just puffing out your chest and being snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
No, your ignorance of Adobe's stance in the professional broadcast industry comes off as snotty.
Mike Teezie
Sep 20, 10:26 AM
I'm buying this thing the day it drops.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
kdarling
Jun 14, 02:31 PM
If you want to program for the iPhone without buying a Mac or learning Objective-C, you can use DragonFire:
http://www.dragonfiresdk.com
It's a very (very) abbreviated C++ like API with screen and button and image suppoert, that you can use to program under free Visual Studio on a PC. Even has an iPhone emulator.
Then you click a button and it apparently sends a internally translated C to Objective-C source up to their Mac servers, which compile it for the iPhone and sends it back signed with their developer tag.
The SDK itself is something like $50 for a local-test-only version, and $100 for the full compile-for-the-real-device version.
For a small price you can submit it under their name to the App Store. Or something like that. Haven't tried it yet.
http://www.dragonfiresdk.com
It's a very (very) abbreviated C++ like API with screen and button and image suppoert, that you can use to program under free Visual Studio on a PC. Even has an iPhone emulator.
Then you click a button and it apparently sends a internally translated C to Objective-C source up to their Mac servers, which compile it for the iPhone and sends it back signed with their developer tag.
The SDK itself is something like $50 for a local-test-only version, and $100 for the full compile-for-the-real-device version.
For a small price you can submit it under their name to the App Store. Or something like that. Haven't tried it yet.
Hastings101
Apr 15, 12:35 PM
I'll skip through the massive flame war that's probably going on in the comments and say nice job Apple :). I'm glad you're taking part in this project, I'm sure it has helped and will help a lot of teens.
darkplanets
Mar 14, 01:23 PM
You Puma and Sushi keep trying to play this down because you 'know how a nuclear reactor works', yet every day your "nowt trouble a t'mill" assurances are just hammered by a new event. An analogy in my mind right now would be architects insisting while we're watching smoke billowing from the towers on our screens that the girders were fireproof-coated so there's no risk of them melting and the buildings collapsing...
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Did you even read the previously posted article? Please do. I understand the cause of concern, and that's fine, it's just the unwarranted running around with the chicken little complex that doesn't fit. As per the towers... well, we could make a whole other thread about that, but see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_%28structure%29). Having a hole ripped in your primary support structure tends to destroy your building, fireproofed or not.
Sorry, but the rest of us know how govts and corporations work. They lie. They cover their own arses. They are incompetent. Gulf oil spill. This very same Tokyo electric company saw the CEO and others resign a few years ago for falsifying safety records. So you ignore the most important aspect of the fleet readings. That they contradict the 'official' line we are being told. That they've now officially been caught lying about how bad it actually is. Did you read any of my previous posts? Of course they lie. Of course the validity of their statements is in question. I said it previously in this thread, multiple times. They also don't necessarily contradict the "official" line.
Look, again, I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to tow the line at the mutant babies remark. Here's a problem; who do you trust? I don't want to spend the time gathering scientific literature for you, so for this next part I'm going to quote the NRC, since it's convenient. I realize you have on your tin foil hat and will probably call this a farce, but I can assure you that there IS literature out there to corroborate these facts.
1) The average radiation exposure to people is ~620 mrem/year-- this means that this ship picked up 52 mrem/hour of radiation from the could. (Read: Only 52 mrem-- the ship was only "in it" for an hour)
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
3) People working with the NRC have an occupational limit of 5000 mrem.
4) Those people living in areas having high levels of background radiation � above 1,000 mrem (10 mSv) per year � such as Denver, Colorado, have shown no adverse biological effects.
5) Cancers associated with high-dose exposure (greater than 50,000 mrem) include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, and stomach cancers. Department of
Health and Human Services literature also suggests a possible association between ionizing radiation exposure and prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal and laryngeal, and pancreatic cancer.
6) Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates � below about 10,000 mrem (100 mSv).
So yes, if we park the ship in the cloud and wait, and follow the cloud (and it's diffusion), someone may have an adverse effect eventually. You do know how gaseous diffusion works, right? As well as precipitation, metal complexation, and solubility, right? I'll assume not. You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
Here's (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html) the link for the NRC data.
Also, you might want to look up three models of radiation exposure (which I also had previously mentioned, if you read my posts): linear no threshold, linear with adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
MacRumors
Jul 11, 09:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
AppleInsider claims they have confirmation (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1877) that Apple will be using Intel's Xeon 5100 series processors, also known as "Woodcrest" to power their next generation Intel-based Mac Pro Workstations.
Previous claims (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060609094241.shtml) indicated that the Mac Pro would continue the Quad-core tradition set by the latest batch of PowerMac G5's. However, in order for an Intel-based "Quad" to be developed, a multi-processor machine would be required, which inherently leaves out the use of Core 2 Duo "Conroe" based microprocessors, as they do not support multi-processor configurations.
Of note, ThinkSecret has maintained (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) that they believe the Mac Pro will utilize Core 2 Duo (Conroe).
Additionally, AppleInsider speculates that Conroe may be used in a future iMac revision, while Merom will be used in future MacBook Pros and Yonah will remain in the MacBook and Mac Mini.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_Pro_and_Woodcrest_Confirmed)
ZDDP1273
Aug 8, 07:36 PM
I get dropped calls a few times a week, but I guess I just deal with it. I have come to a realization that nothing is ever really going to be perfect, so I guess I just deal with it. I do understand that people would be frustrated with it though.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 09:36 PM
Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:07 PM
You know what I hate about crap like this?
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I actually produce some of my own food. but it doesnt matter. Im not pointing fingers we are all the problem. If Greenpeace REALLY wants to make a difference they should actually do something instead of sitting back and say how anti-environment everyone is. and people should try to make use of other sources of energy. I forget town it was but somewhere in Minnesota, a man discovered that if he took cattails(not real cat tails, the kind you find near a lake) and compress them into small pellets he could use them to power his house. Later on he found that enough of them could power his town. I dont know how he did it i'll google it. but people should be doing things like that, innovation and utilization.
EDIT: just found out that they do make energy with them but it wont last that long. idk i guess there isnt enough :(
People read it, and then point their respective (washed in soap with chemical additives and toxins) fingers at Appple, because it makes them feel good. "Yeah, this Apple stuff is crap!"
Then they go drive a block down the street to get milk from a cow who's waste runoff pollutes the local river, sit down and watch their TV with power generated from a coal-spewing power plant while eating dinner from plastic packaging that came from oil that was refined at a plant that contaminates the environment.
Unless you live on an uninhabited island, catch all your own food and generate your own power, you have no room to talk. None of us do.
I actually produce some of my own food. but it doesnt matter. Im not pointing fingers we are all the problem. If Greenpeace REALLY wants to make a difference they should actually do something instead of sitting back and say how anti-environment everyone is. and people should try to make use of other sources of energy. I forget town it was but somewhere in Minnesota, a man discovered that if he took cattails(not real cat tails, the kind you find near a lake) and compress them into small pellets he could use them to power his house. Later on he found that enough of them could power his town. I dont know how he did it i'll google it. but people should be doing things like that, innovation and utilization.
EDIT: just found out that they do make energy with them but it wont last that long. idk i guess there isnt enough :(
Chappers
Mar 13, 11:38 AM
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
whoami
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
$300! Makes me think Logic Studio X might be $199.
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
This is beyond overdue! :eek:
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 04:10 PM
I'd just like to inject here that Apple is apparently complying with all U.S. environmental regulations and, to my mind anyway, has no corporate responsibility towards the environment beyond that. They are certainly not bound by the law to have CPU and iPod recycling programs, for example.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
If they were breaking environmental law, that would be entirely different. Their social responsibility towards the environment is to act within the law, which they are doing.
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:30 PM
Do be frank you're talking crap! :mad:
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
There is more than enough food being produced and, more importantly, wasted to ensure that nobody goes to bed with an empty stomach. The reason millions, not thousands, of Africans have died, and continue to do so, are varied and complex.
But to simplify, as you have, surely the blame lies with corrupt African governments that line their own pockets with Western aid whilst their population die of disease and hunger? To 'save' Africa, the leadership needs to be strong, and it's main aim must be the well-being and protection of it's citizens.
GM foods will not save Africa and Greenpeace is not in any way responsible for the death of Africans from starvation for opposing GM research.
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:37 PM
Whatever:rolleyes: ... Like I care that you think I am an idiot ...
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 10:08 AM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
LightSpeed1
May 3, 06:40 PM
Looks like I'll stop using safari.