DroidRules
Apr 28, 09:22 AM
I'm replying just so you don't get the slightest idea in your head that you've won, or that I'm retreating. I'm sitting with my entire office laughing at your naivete and misunderstanding of what modern computer hardware is. Keep digging your hole.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Maybe your employer would like to know the entire office is slacking and on MR instead of working...... nice way to burn company time with your pathetic pecker measuring.
Gelfin
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
It is also quite unpopular to be a member of the KKK. Shall we similarly go out of our way to show compassion and tolerance for their most deeply held convictions? Or am I perhaps being cruel and unfair to the guy in the sheet when I call him an a-hole and suggest he shape up his attitude or don't act surprised when civilized human beings don't like him very much.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
Citing "religious or moral" reasons to be especially down on homosexuality invites an automatic ten-yard penalty for hypocrisy, because the ratio of religious vitriol to actual scriptural proscription is higher for this issue than for any other. People don't have a problem with gay people because their religion tells them to. They have a problem with gay people because they're run-of-the-mill prejudiced human beings, just like people who are prejudiced over any other identity issue, and they look to their religion to excuse them for it.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
G58
Nov 7, 03:39 PM
Or because it's an interesting debate that engages many minds in varying aspects of the possibilities.
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
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..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
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
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
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..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
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
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. 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. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
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.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. 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. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
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.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
gwangung
Apr 20, 07:05 PM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
ftrtrk
Sep 12, 04:47 PM
why the h can't they release it yet? Jobs was using it perfectly on stage, it looks great, this is confusing.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 05:55 PM
You may not like the lack of start menu...
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
Actually, I do think this would bug me. I love that I have all of my most used programs (Word, Excel, Photoshop, Lightroom, Notepad, etc, plus one particular folder) right there for easy access with 1 click of the Start button -- yet hidden away completely out of sight (until I click on Start). I also love having quick access to my "Recent Items" list, to quickly open a file I was recently working on.
How are the above 2 things done on a Mac?
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
eek... I use "alt-tab" and "copy & paste" A LOT! :eek:
Doesn't Mac have these things too? :confused:
emotion
Sep 20, 08:36 AM
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
I can do what an iPod does with my Powerbook too. Doesn't mean I want to use that to play music when I'm walking around.
Likewise, I want a computer at close distance hooked up to a computer monitor, it's less than ideal sat under my TV displaying on a relatively low res screen with a keyboard and mouse teetering on my lap. I know Apple think this too.
With the iTV as I see it you get to have that Mini being a real computer somewhere else in your house.
That said, I could be wrong and it could be a really cut down Mac Mini. I guess we'll see.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
I can do what an iPod does with my Powerbook too. Doesn't mean I want to use that to play music when I'm walking around.
Likewise, I want a computer at close distance hooked up to a computer monitor, it's less than ideal sat under my TV displaying on a relatively low res screen with a keyboard and mouse teetering on my lap. I know Apple think this too.
With the iTV as I see it you get to have that Mini being a real computer somewhere else in your house.
That said, I could be wrong and it could be a really cut down Mac Mini. I guess we'll see.
henhowc
May 6, 10:20 AM
I don't really get my calls dropped when I'm connected with someone. But I do get a lot of calls where it never rings or registers as a missed call and it just goes straight to voice mail. That's a bit frustrating. I'm in the West Los Angeles area and work in a densely populated college campus so I'm assuming that's probably contributing to the problem.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
They are fast enough. They do what they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it.
The don't crash, don't get viruses, and don't look like something from the 1980s!
but look at dis man
gots to be able to surf da net fastest to see all da nekkid pictures before da wife comes de home:p
gnasher729
Apr 9, 02:47 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers.
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
ksz
Oct 12, 04:52 PM
Here ya go: http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=creativecontest&message.id=143&l=en&s=dhs
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
This is a really good deal. Ordered mine a few minutes ago for $1350+tax. Will use it with my home-built PC (nVidia 7800 GTX with dual-link DVI) until the next-gen Mac Pro is released.
henrikmk
Mar 19, 03:21 AM
I would be amused if this now leads to increased sales of music on the iTMS. DRM haters and/or Linux users will be allowed to buy music. It probably won't be noticable if they shut off access quickly enough, but it would be interesting. :D
DRM just doesn't work.
DRM just doesn't work.
stcanard
Mar 18, 08:41 PM
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
And if you look at the number of iPods sold compared to the number of ITMS songs sold, it is plainly obvious this statement is pure bull.
dgree03
Apr 21, 08:56 AM
Well, just think of it as paying toll on a road that your taxes had already paid for (probably a bad example).
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
I agree with this statement, I think tech savvy people are the ones who can use most any operating system, gadget, or whatever in some capacity.
Knowledge will be 5 miles long and 1 foot deep.
This is a bad example, usually you pay a toll BECAUSE tax money was not used OR to fund half(or more) of the project.
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
I agree with this statement, I think tech savvy people are the ones who can use most any operating system, gadget, or whatever in some capacity.
Knowledge will be 5 miles long and 1 foot deep.
Thunderbird
Mar 13, 05:49 PM
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
in laden numa numa. numa bin
osama bin laden numa numa bin
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
pik.
Oct 7, 01:58 PM
if iPhone OS remains to 2 cell phones then YES in the future iPhone will decrease...
it is sure.
Apple must do Phones in 3 price scale...fully unlocked and without the stupid blocks in terms of closed OS.
it is sure.
Apple must do Phones in 3 price scale...fully unlocked and without the stupid blocks in terms of closed OS.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:14 PM
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
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.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 03:10 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?What's your best price on that puppy? I've been wanting to do that for a while. But my 500GB boot drive is almost full all the time. ;)
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
Wish they made a 500GB Raptor. :p
puma1552
Mar 12, 06:16 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Beg to differ. You've been praising Japanese nuclear power plant construction as being superior to the impoverished Soviet ones that go into meltdown. Well, we've all now seen your argument for the 'testament to building codes' by 'experts on Japanese nuclear regulations' totally explode and is now lying in rubble. Unless of course you now insist that the building exploding and cllapsing on the core is part of the building codes? ;):
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Cougarcat
May 2, 12:30 PM
That's one of the simple lines of defense for a user, as it lets them know they're about to open a newly-downloaded app. It only does that the first time you launch the app, so why bother disabling such a helpful reminder?
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
It's not "helpful." I don't need to be "reminded" the file I downloaded a second ago was downloaded from the internet. I'm sure others find it useful, but for me, it's pointless and annoying..
Just a simple "do not warn me about downloaded files again" tickbox in the dialog would be nice.
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Doraemon
Aug 29, 02:19 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
So am I.
So am I.
