balamw
Apr 11, 08:42 AM
But, who knows... maybe some day.
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Why is it all or nothing? Mac or Windows and not Mac and Windows.
B
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Why is it all or nothing? Mac or Windows and not Mac and Windows.
B
mattk3650
Apr 5, 09:23 PM
Wanna know the reason behind this. People on Verizon don't have the iPhone and aren't leaving the company so they just buy the next best thing.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
If there's no iPhone on Verizon before 2011 I'm getting a Droid so hurry up Apple.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
schwell
Nov 5, 09:56 PM
Now that Android is coming to Verizon (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=798678) and they will be collaborating on handsets, I have no doubt Android will surpass the iPhone in terms of user numbers. Will it surpass in quality? That remains to be seen...
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 09:52 AM
I have been blessed with an athletic and healthy body.
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
Unfortunately, your avatar shows your butter face and not your hot bod....
dmelgar
Sep 12, 07:31 PM
Sounded like a downer to me. I haven't seen the presentation, so maybe its better than the story sounds.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
- Whatever happened to a Tivo killer? No TV? No DVR?
- Sounds like this doesn't have a hard drive, supposed to display on a TV a video bitstream received via network connection. There are already many devices out there that do this, starting at $99. What makes this any better? Big problem with those so far is that you need an excellent 802.11g connection or you get dropouts when playing a DVD. Ethernet is the only thing that makes it reliable.
- 1Q2007? Since when does Apple pre-announce. They've been working on this for over a year and 1Q2007 is the best they can do? I wonder what the holdup is. Missing the Christmas shopping season? Horrors!
- Movies on iTunes. What DRM is associated with the movies? Can you burn the movie to a DVD to play in a DVD player? How do the prices compare to buying a DVD. If its similar price, I get much more on a DVD, ie special features, can play anywhere.
- No rental? Why not. I'm much more likely to rent a movie than buy one. I'm more likely to value the convenience of renting quickly online vs. driving to a store. But to buy and keep forever, I'd rather get a DVD.
- What movies? Only from Disney? Doesn't sound very impressive. What would make other studios jump on the bandwagon? I thought Apple would come up with something revolutionary that would drag the studios in. But I don't see it yet.
Anonymous Freak
Oct 7, 10:28 AM
Yeah for now... But I'm sure we'll see 3GHz and faster as they increase production. All depends on when I finally decide to make my purchase. But the 2.66GHz is probably it... I may go with the 2.33GHz if the price on the 2.66 is to far out of line, but we'll see. Right now, the current 3GHz Mac Pro is $800 more, but to me that would be worth it for that extra edge on my renderings.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
Yeah, from what I've seen, it's very likely that Woodcrest (dual-core) and Clovertown (quad-core) could easily make it to the mid 3 GHz range on the current production process; and might even see 4 GHz. (Although 4 GHz would be toward the end of next year at the earliest.) With 45 nm production, we'll see bigger L2 caches, four cores as 'standard' on workstation/server chips, (four fully integrated cores, the way Woodcrest is two fully integrated cores now.)
But I in raw GHz, we'll be stuck at about 4 GHz as the max for quite a while. Remember, "Moore's Law" didn't predict GHz, it predicted 'number of transistors or cost per transistor'. As long as we're doublling the number of cores each 1.5-2 years, we're keeping up with Moore's Law.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 05:07 PM
You know not a good solution and batteries go bad.
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread
That being said I might as well give a better answer to Night than batteries. That is we can store the heat energy from the sun to make it threw the night and already do it. Most large solar arrayes used for power reflect the light onto a centeral point and make a heat engine that boils water and turns it to steam that goes threw a turbine to provided power.
Now that energy can be stored and I believe we do it by heating up salt to a liquid form and used that to move the heat to boil the water into steam. We store the liquid salt over night.
Now I will say that solar is no were close to as effience as coal or gas power planets and their theorical max is by far lower.
Stop harping on that post and ignoring my other one. I was just making a point that the poster with his obnoxious argument about "night" was ignoring. I already posted a very viable technology that could solve this problem. Look a few posts up and you'll find it. next time, read the whole thread
rtdunham
Sep 20, 12:34 PM
Maybe in the future, Apple teams up with Marantz...and other AV surround reciever manufacturers to build ITV inside their receivers? (like some of them already have ipod dock connectors)...The ITV is built inside the AV receiver. And you can use the remote from your receiver the control the new front row.
Nice idea. and car makers could have the iTV built in, so kids or passengers in the back seat could stream video to the car's built-in video system (the link could just as easily be wired, but none of today's iPod-ready cars provide for this video-to-dvd player useability, do they?
Nice idea. and car makers could have the iTV built in, so kids or passengers in the back seat could stream video to the car's built-in video system (the link could just as easily be wired, but none of today's iPod-ready cars provide for this video-to-dvd player useability, do they?
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 05:34 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.Yep. This is true of many laws.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.Actually, they get even crazier when you start making derivative works like that. I do video as a hobby and have to be very careful if someone asks me to put a commercial track on the wedding video I'm editting. Technically, I cannot do it without a syncronization license plus royalty payment agreements for each copy sold. Just try to pin down a videographer on the legality of this - it's a HUGE grey area in the fair use clause. Some artists and/or labels (so I've read) won't even let you do it if you are willing to pay for said licenses because they don't want their "art" mixed with someone elses (the video).
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.Welcome to humanity, were the one jerk always screws it up for the rest of us. :mad:
Pants
Oct 9, 04:18 AM
Ive been using xp pro for 3 months here at work, and I have to say I'm quietly impressed. Its never crashed, nothing has unepectedly quit (and its running a bunch of custom pci cards, so if ever it was flakey, id have expected it to be so with this rig...). My only complaint is the 'look' of it - osX does look nicer, but then osX is a lot less snappy.
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
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.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
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
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
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.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
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
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 09:27 PM
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
RebootD
Apr 12, 11:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
As a print designer who has slowly started moving into editing and animation it made sense for me to just pay more for the Master Collection and start using Premiere and AE.
That said I miss using FCP (I used it at a job a few years back) and at $299 I am happy to pick it up and combine it with AE.
As a print designer who has slowly started moving into editing and animation it made sense for me to just pay more for the Master Collection and start using Premiere and AE.
That said I miss using FCP (I used it at a job a few years back) and at $299 I am happy to pick it up and combine it with AE.
MacRumors
Apr 20, 05:10 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/20/apple-on-android-fragmentation-lte-steve-jobs-involvement/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/20/181004-2411563228_ab83a1f05f.jpg
kate middleton weight loss
kate middleton weight loss.
kate middleton weight loss
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/20/181004-2411563228_ab83a1f05f.jpg
.Andy
Apr 24, 10:32 PM
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
skunk
Apr 24, 11:16 AM
Don't forget it's thought the Caliph Umar ordered the burning of the Library at Alexandria.Among other theories:Destruction
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
Julius Caesar's Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;
The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
Julius Caesar's Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC
The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;
The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;
The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:13 PM
(Examples = teaching)!= saying
The latter is specific to the situation.
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
...
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
As above.
Reacent Post
The latter is specific to the situation.
This quote is sectioned to the event of homosexuality being concerned. However, you have to prove that woman is being obscene, which is almost impossible if you've got to find 1 doctor, 4 witnesses to event, and two family members to testify the same thing.
100 striped != death.
Adultery or fornication is VERY contentious in Islam. It is a big sin, and often breaks contracts, of nature of marriage. No death here.
...
If you're going to quote something, please be sure to complete the damn sentence... and not end it prematurely:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
In other words, be modest.
as above, adultery is a greater sin. This, though, does not demonstrate honour killing. An honour killing is killing made by family or community that the victim has brought dishonour against the family or community.
In this case, is it not dishonour, is it considered to be criminal.
As above.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 05:19 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
Daphtdazz
Oct 7, 11:03 AM
I mean, how else can they be coming up with a 2 year prediction to an accuracy of 0.67%?
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
You just wonder about the people making these claims. What have they done, exactly? Sat down in front of Excel, typed in a few numbers and then just written out the answer without even thinking about it? I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't:
iPhone: 13.728285919847%
Android: 14.491509184751%
etc.
It seems like a big leap anyway to predict a 7 fold market share increase, let alone think it will beat the iPhone whose momentum seems very strong.
MacinDoc
Apr 12, 10:57 PM
Yeah, I don't know about one click CC either. Color me skeptical. Although a lot of color adjustments are just minor, so theoretically, it could do a decent job.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
Agreed, Color and Motion probably need to remain separate apps, although Apple may later market them as part of a suite. I don't think today's announcement has any bearing on the status of Color and Motion.
Anyone doing complicated color work is going to need a dedicated app anyway. I don't think it's realistic to assume FCPX will ever be able to do this.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
Agreed, Color and Motion probably need to remain separate apps, although Apple may later market them as part of a suite. I don't think today's announcement has any bearing on the status of Color and Motion.
The DRis
Mar 18, 12:29 PM
And this accomplishes what - exactly?
I want that text so I can call them up and lambast the eff out of them.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
I want that text so I can call them up and lambast the eff out of them.
I'm not jailbroken, I don't tether. But it pisses me off that they are wanting to limit data.
I just checked, my data use per month for the last six months is anywhere from 4GB-7GB a month. Mostly because I stream a radio station. Pandora is better at managing data sending it in packets, this app uses straight streaming.
I'll be staying off my wifi at home and at work.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 01:25 PM
I haven't seen that in my experience. Most atheists put a great deal of deliberative thought into their position. "Casual" atheists are more commonly, in my experience, agnostics with a poor vocabulary. In fact, the very idea of holding a position without substantiation is an anathema to what atheists hold above all else: the triumph of reason over "intuition."
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
I realize the capricious nature of something like this since people are free to label themselves however they please. However, I think you'll find that those who affirmatively state what they don't believe will have a thought out answer, much like the self-described atheists in this thread. Granted there are some who have a reduced grasp of science and the scientific method, but that's no different than a Catholic who has doesn't know the Eighth Commandment. There are always going to be better prepared members of any sub-group.
I also don't think there is an atheist who isn't challenged all the time about their beliefs. People (especially in the US) have a deep distrust of atheists and it isn't something people usually wear on their sleeves; it's a scarlet letter that always needs to be "justified."
I'm not even sure you can use pure reason to establish any deity. What would be the logical construction of that argument?
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
0 comments:
Post a Comment