MadGoat
Apr 24, 02:17 PM
actually it is not the fear of Death ... many religious people do not worry when their time is done ... for them "the afterlife" trumps everything
You just validated the original point. the fear of death is why people embrace religion to give them hope of an afterlife and immortality so that they don't have to be afraid.
Myself, I'm not afraid of dying, it's something I cannot stop. I'm just afraid of dying too soon.
You just validated the original point. the fear of death is why people embrace religion to give them hope of an afterlife and immortality so that they don't have to be afraid.
Myself, I'm not afraid of dying, it's something I cannot stop. I'm just afraid of dying too soon.
Chupa Chupa
Apr 9, 07:07 AM
I'm not sure why this is front page news. Apple is a little late to the game (no pun) here as devs have already made the iPod the new "game boy". But it's not really the hardware that has done this, but rather inexpensive app prices. I hate to see Apple get sidetracked here. They should just continue to focus on innovating and the devs will come out with apps people want at prices parents and kids can afford.
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
Sony and Nintendo really can't compete because they are addicted to the double digit price points for games. But who is going to pay $28 for Mario anymore when you can get Angry Birds for $2.
balamw
Feb 11, 07:56 PM
Calendar that automatically synch with Google calendar. No extra fees for Mobile Me..and works absolutely perfectly! Unlike Mobile Me..which I had.
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
If you don't need to access an Exchange server, you can do this with Google Sync on the iPhone.
http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=138740&topic=14252
EDIT: I'm not keeping track, but did they ever get around to fixing the memory storage on the droid so you can have more than 256 MB of apps? The microSD is kind of useless if you can't you know use it.
B
Same for Gmail..instant notification!
If you don't need to access an Exchange server, you can do this with Google Sync on the iPhone.
http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?answer=138740&topic=14252
EDIT: I'm not keeping track, but did they ever get around to fixing the memory storage on the droid so you can have more than 256 MB of apps? The microSD is kind of useless if you can't you know use it.
B
BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 02:12 PM
2003: "In 12 months, we'll be at 3GHz".
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Mid 2006: "I want to talk about 2.66GHz" although 4 cores running at 2.66GHz (Yum! :D ).
Dippo
Mar 18, 04:20 PM
RIAA Okay, so you want to actually pay for your music, huh?
Commemorating “Cinco de Mayo”
Posted in Cinco de Mayo
Cinco De Mayo Pictures,
Air Jordan 1 Cinco de Mayo
Cinco De Mayo Myspace Orkut
cinco de mayo graphics
The Truth About Cinco de Mayo
Cinco de Mayo, the Confederacy
Cinco De Mayo Orkut Scraps
You Like Cinco de Mayo
Myspace Cinco de Mayo Comments
Cinco de Mayo Lapbook
border Cinco de mayo title
a pair of cinco-de-mayo
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:23 PM
The installer is marked as safe to auto-execute if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
This is again just brushing over the issue. You're again not helping. I get all the rest. I even get this part. I want to know more about this part in particular though. What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing". What is so special about installers that would prevent a malicious payload (without privilege escalation, unless you were to exploit a local privilege escalation bug) from auto-executing ?
This is my point and this is what I'm trying to dissect here. This sentence of yours is the tip of the iceberg. Let's go deeper here. You keep repeating this non-sense that's everywhere on the web and that I've read and told you thousands of times that I understand.
Installers being marked as safe really doesn't increase the likelihood of user level access as the Javascript exploit already provided user level access. I don't understand why you are hung up on this installer being able to auto-execute; it really makes no difference in terms of user level access. The attacker could have deleted your files with just the Javascript exploit.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
Let's face it, auto-downloads are not a Javascript exploit, they're a feature used on many sites these days : "Your download will auto-start in 5 seconds, click here if it doesn't work". It's not uncommon and quite not the issue here.
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't quite understand what is going on here. I think it's not my technical knowledge that is at issue here, it's your understanding of my point. Again, stop replying to me if all you want to do is discuss the tip of the iceberg covered by the press. I don't care about that, I read that, it raises more questions for me than it answers.
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 06:08 PM
I'm far from the first or only person who has deviated from the original topic. You can either move with the discussion, or virtually everything from page 2 on is off-topic. For those of you playing at home, the goalposts have now been moved from hatred to violence to violence specifically from a catholic source to violence specifically from a "real" catholic.
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
Despite your disregard for the pretext of civility, my source was wikipedia, which I did in fact cite in post #27. I'll thank you not to make unfounded accusations.
This coming from a person who just very selectively quoted parts of my statement. I guess I shall assume the other 2.5 points I made were true?
The irony is so thick I might choke.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 10:35 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess16 cores in 2007
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
32 cores in 2008
64 cores in 2009
128 cores in 2010
You want to wait 'til 2010 at the soonest? :rolleyes:
superfula
Apr 11, 04:02 PM
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
Aside from the part about installing Mac OS on the pc, which isn't THAT far off if you have the right hardware, nothing else that he said is really that inaccurate.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
Did you not read the thread title? The op was specifically asking for people's opinions and what they don't like. And that's exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
Good grief, he didn't attack your mom. Your statement here, and really the entire post is uncalled for. He is well within the subject of the thread. If you don't believe so, report him and move on. If you don't like his reasoning, perhaps you are far to pro-Mac to be able to know the difference. Chill.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 02:21 PM
What he's saying is that sometimes its the person thats the issue not the article, and using the word homo is funny because that also refers to homosexual.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
There's probably a phrase which sums it up more concisely.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:36 PM
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 05:37 PM
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
I think it's a bit late to worry about that :D
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 10:13 PM
That's a real shame and I hope that improves for you. I am proud that we appear to be more open minded on this side of the pond. I have had plenty of people disagree with me, but we can agree to accept our differences.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
All our money has that crap on it. Just like how UNDER GOD was added to the pledge when we were all so afraid of the communists taking over, our currency was also hi-jacked by the religious right. Pathetic example of how we do not have separation of church and state.
I was once pointed to an interesting indication of the difference in culture. In the USA I believe the $1 bill contains the phrase "In God We Trust". In the UK, we have Charles Darwin on our currency! He appears on the �10 note and a recent �2 coin. The �2 coin changes fairly regularly though.
All our money has that crap on it. Just like how UNDER GOD was added to the pledge when we were all so afraid of the communists taking over, our currency was also hi-jacked by the religious right. Pathetic example of how we do not have separation of church and state.
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:55 AM
sounds a little conflicting ... I write it off as jibberish ... I'll stick with science instead
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
The information isn't conflicting, and it's not intended to convince anyone of intelligent design. In it's simplest form, it's showing that the Hebrew word translated "day" is used to refer to varying periods of time, not necessarily 24-hour periods. As a side note, it's also a portion of an element in the bible that supports the same conclusion as science, which is that the earth isn't merely 7,000 years old. The theory of 4 billion years doesn't contradict the bible.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
I could not agree more. Apple has got to be in final stages of deploying a sub $2k Kentsfield desktop for 2007 or they will be missing one hell of a sales opportunity.
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
Did you know I'd be following this thread Multimedia? ;) Music to my ears I tell ya... :D
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 08:01 PM
Android is to Windows, as iOS is to Mac OS.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
The similarities are astounding � Google is doing the same thing Microsoft did back in the day.
As much as Apple cares about marketshare, the experience is more important to them then the product itself. That's really something.
Nonsense - Microsoft did not give away Windows for free, and certainly never gave the source code to OEMs to develop in their own way. Windows Phone 7 is to Windows...and that's about it. There's no point in even trying to make this comparison since Android as a platform is not as prolific as iOS anyway, is HORRIBLE for use in the enterprise (blackberry is the real competition there), and is also used on phones that aren't even capable of running apps.
r0k
Apr 20, 08:57 AM
as said before...
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
FoxyKaye
Feb 22, 06:04 PM
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
For better and for worse.
I happen to be one of those Geeks foaming at the mouth about flash, and in general, I think that the reason why Adobe was so upset by Jobs' recent comments that they're lazy and all their products are bloated and inefficient is because they hit to close to home.
But you're also very right - the general consumer doesn't care about these points. On some level everyone "knows" that the Web "requires" flash, and without it they're not getting the full "experience." It's an easy hit for the competitor's marketing department to play up the full flash experience on devices that support it in comparison to the iPhone and iPad. Jobs can scream all he wants about HTML5 on the horizon, however, this isn't going to be fully realized for some time. Likewise, too many sites rely too heavily on flash content for its absence to not be felt.
I think not supporting flash is a mistake, despite its technical flaws. Maybe this is all just a play by Apple to get Adobe to make some real and necessary improvements to flash in the first place - especially in how it taxes processor cycles and affects battery life on OS X (and presumably the iPhone OS as well). It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some magical "reconciliation" between Apple and Adobe on this point sometime this year as the iPad hits the consumer market.
For better and for worse.
I happen to be one of those Geeks foaming at the mouth about flash, and in general, I think that the reason why Adobe was so upset by Jobs' recent comments that they're lazy and all their products are bloated and inefficient is because they hit to close to home.
But you're also very right - the general consumer doesn't care about these points. On some level everyone "knows" that the Web "requires" flash, and without it they're not getting the full "experience." It's an easy hit for the competitor's marketing department to play up the full flash experience on devices that support it in comparison to the iPhone and iPad. Jobs can scream all he wants about HTML5 on the horizon, however, this isn't going to be fully realized for some time. Likewise, too many sites rely too heavily on flash content for its absence to not be felt.
I think not supporting flash is a mistake, despite its technical flaws. Maybe this is all just a play by Apple to get Adobe to make some real and necessary improvements to flash in the first place - especially in how it taxes processor cycles and affects battery life on OS X (and presumably the iPhone OS as well). It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some magical "reconciliation" between Apple and Adobe on this point sometime this year as the iPad hits the consumer market.
tf23
Sep 12, 08:18 PM
...The think that worries me is that there is no mention of this device being able to play non-iTunes movies. What about if you back up a DVD to your computer. Can you play it on this? We'll have to wait and see.
I am willing to bet if you backup all your DVD's and then run them through handbrake you'll be set. Take all those 500-1.5GB mp4 files and drag and drop 'em into your iTunes. Then the 'iTV' would see them and there's your movie collection easily accessible.
I am willing to bet if you backup all your DVD's and then run them through handbrake you'll be set. Take all those 500-1.5GB mp4 files and drag and drop 'em into your iTunes. Then the 'iTV' would see them and there's your movie collection easily accessible.
pubwvj
Oct 9, 07:26 PM
"Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012?"
Wow. Boring, baseless prediction. Everyone will forget it since it won't come to be. If by some remote chance it comes to be then they get to claim they made the prediction. This is hocus-pocus. They create a large base line of many varied predictions so that later they can claim accurate prediction. Typical of soothesayers and investment bankers.
Wow. Boring, baseless prediction. Everyone will forget it since it won't come to be. If by some remote chance it comes to be then they get to claim they made the prediction. This is hocus-pocus. They create a large base line of many varied predictions so that later they can claim accurate prediction. Typical of soothesayers and investment bankers.
PJWilkinson
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
I've just got back from the live streamed event in London and summarised the key highlights of the show here:
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
http://blog.crowdstorm.com
I wish I'd had my camera now. I did have a chance to play with all the products (except iTV) and must say the ipods look a lot smaller and the iTunes interface is very slick. iTV was basically a flat apple mini with lots of connectors out the back for the TV - no one could convince us that the 640x480 would be enough for HDTV or which wireless protocol it would use.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 01:36 PM
This entire thread is hilarious.
May be it's time to let the Android users in on the joke:
You are all owners of iphones.
Whatever is different from a real iphone is just a cover up by Apple.
They ousted Schmitt from the board of directors and gave him the phone number for the retired dude in Mexico who was on the iphone development team.
They then promised that guy a permanent cure from "Montezuma's Revenge" (rampant in Mexico)if he would only share his expertise on the iphone.
Trouble is he doesn't remember all the iphone details, so what you get with the Android is an iphone with whatever he can remember.
Some manufacturers are trying to fill in the blanks or give these things for FREE so nobody can really complain. (They do, see my sig below)
In summary, thank you all for using iphones with different names and recognizing that ONLY APPLE put a device together you all love now .
It makes for fun reading:-)
Copy on dudes and Happy Easter!:-)
May be it's time to let the Android users in on the joke:
You are all owners of iphones.
Whatever is different from a real iphone is just a cover up by Apple.
They ousted Schmitt from the board of directors and gave him the phone number for the retired dude in Mexico who was on the iphone development team.
They then promised that guy a permanent cure from "Montezuma's Revenge" (rampant in Mexico)if he would only share his expertise on the iphone.
Trouble is he doesn't remember all the iphone details, so what you get with the Android is an iphone with whatever he can remember.
Some manufacturers are trying to fill in the blanks or give these things for FREE so nobody can really complain. (They do, see my sig below)
In summary, thank you all for using iphones with different names and recognizing that ONLY APPLE put a device together you all love now .
It makes for fun reading:-)
Copy on dudes and Happy Easter!:-)
