Gelfin
Mar 25, 02:27 PM
All Christians are not Catholics.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
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.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
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.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
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.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
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.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
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.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
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.
nehunte
Oct 7, 10:52 AM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
EricNau
Mar 13, 09:23 PM
MODERATOR NOTE
Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) if you qualify. Thanks
Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.
Please, this is not the place to debate the advantages and disadvantageous of nuclear power, nor any other politically-charged issue. From the Forum Rules:
Threads and posts on controversial political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please start a thread in PRSI (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) if you qualify. Thanks
Meanwhile, my sincerest condolences to all who were affected by this disaster. Hang in there, and stay safe.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 07:24 PM
Maybe I don't represent the majority of the population, but it always annoys me when people perpetuate this thinking that Windows is so virus filled.
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
Hence the robust market for Windows anti-virus software?
(As for malware vs. virus, to the consumer it doesn't matter. Both suck.)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 12:49 PM
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
latergator116
Mar 20, 06:41 PM
Oh, for crying out loud. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and breaking the law is wrong. If the law is wrong in your opinion, change the law.
Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:
Hey, good point. Even it is totally unfair and unjust, it's still wrong because breaking the law is wrong. :rolleyes:
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
jefhatfield
Oct 12, 08:30 PM
ya guys lost me way back there, too ;)
hey, do they use aluminum bats in the majors sometimes;) :p
hey, do they use aluminum bats in the majors sometimes;) :p
dernhelm
Sep 20, 04:39 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 04:44 PM
... and because of the US preventing alternative sources we are depending on Russia which had been a consistent supplier for more than half a century
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
A deal for the Berlin Wall? :rolleyes:
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 12:43 AM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapping into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapping into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:05 PM
Here's what I would like Apple to do. Open up Front Row so that companies like el gato can integrate their eyeTV software into the Front Row system. That way, I can have a Mac sitting in the office with an eyeTV box to record HD programming off of cable. Then, I could have an iTV in my living room to play the recorded material onto my 46" LCD HDTV (which I haven't bought yet).
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
milozauckerman
Jul 14, 02:20 PM
I got excited for a second - hey a $1799 low end quad, I'm sold! Oh, wait, just one processor, never mind.
Too expensive on the low-end, if true. I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
Too expensive on the low-end, if true. I suspect we'll see a lot of reviews and benchmarks giving a bad cost to value ratio for the Macs.
jiggie2g
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Call of Duty 4 Modern Combat
The Call of Duty 4: Modern
call of duty 2 modern warfare
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 12, 04:19 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
Therbo
May 2, 09:29 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
If it wants to infect the system fully, it can't do that silently, unless you have no password or a weak one set for your account.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
I would just call it scareware.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
If it wants to infect the system fully, it can't do that silently, unless you have no password or a weak one set for your account.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
I would just call it scareware.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 03:19 AM
Care to elaborate?
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
To reply sarcastically about my post about Matthew 5:10-12, someone posted this :rolleyes: smily. To answer lightheartedly, I said that I liked that emoticon. I was not writing about anyone's face.
faroZ06
May 2, 10:20 PM
Unchecking a single box isn't justification for switching browsers. If you don't like Safari, fine. But this isn't a reason for anyone to leave Safari.
Yeah. I actually like Safari way more than anything else because of all of the features and integration with Mac OS X that Firefox and Chrome lack. Also, Chrome hogs RAM, and Firefox takes a while to start. Don't even talk about IE :rolleyes:
And for me Firefox seems MORE bloated, but I haven't really run any tests. I've tested Chrome just to respond to eMails from my friend, a Google fanboy, about Chrome being "faster". :D
Yeah. I actually like Safari way more than anything else because of all of the features and integration with Mac OS X that Firefox and Chrome lack. Also, Chrome hogs RAM, and Firefox takes a while to start. Don't even talk about IE :rolleyes:
And for me Firefox seems MORE bloated, but I haven't really run any tests. I've tested Chrome just to respond to eMails from my friend, a Google fanboy, about Chrome being "faster". :D
emotion
Sep 20, 09:05 AM
Slightly OT but bear with me.
The Topfield TF5800 (see above) isn't fully HD capable but it's technically possible that it can record HD streams for use on your computer.
In this instance the iTV would be very useful (back on topic now :) ).
The Topfield TF5800 (see above) isn't fully HD capable but it's technically possible that it can record HD streams for use on your computer.
In this instance the iTV would be very useful (back on topic now :) ).
brepublican
Sep 12, 04:06 PM
I think this is a great product from Apple and shows great foresight. SJ and Apple recognise that they can't surplant the TV from the living room.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
And for everyone already moaning over a 'beta', I dont even know what to say to you. There is a reason it is not being released today. Is it perfect yet? No. Is it complete? No. Will it be able to record TV shows? Who knows? But its good to bear in mind that this is not a final product, and seems to me like its FAR from being done.
Overall, good job by Apple. It's definitely a move in the right direction.
TallGuy1970
Apr 20, 05:47 PM
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Ah yes, the ever present "Android users must be smarter because they can customize their phones more" argument. It's still as irritating and off-base as it always was. :rolleyes:
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:57 AM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
Wilbah
May 5, 08:59 PM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar